Red Fascists Riot in Vancouver
Orest Slepokura
Red Fascists Riot in Vancouver
In Vancouver, B.C., the night of Thursday, Sept. 30, was a night to
remember as far as the suppression of free speech in Canada is
concerned, and no doubt an augur of things to come. It saw a violent,
organized disruption of a public meeting in the Vancouver Public Library
by communists (who brandished their placards) and their supporters, some
of whom belonged to special interest groups like the Canadian Jewish
Congress.
The occasion was a meeting laid on by lawyer Doug Christie and the
Canadian Free Speech League to raise money for Doug Collins's challenge
to British Columbia's misnamed human rights law. Mr. Collins , who was
the featured speaker, has been a victim of that law on account of
columns he wrote for the North Shore News.
The scene was one of utter chaos, reminiscent of what went on in Nazi
Germany. Over twenty police and security guards were on hand but they
could not contain the rioters, who broke through the police lines and
tried to break down the doors of the hall in which Mr. Collins was
attempting to speak. Several rioters were removed in a police paddy
wagon, and at least one arrest was made. The noise was excruciating and
fire alarms were set off.
Many people who wanted to hear the speech were unable to get into the
library, and a "minority" protester kept screaming and shouting for the
whole of the time that Doug and Mr. Christie were speaking. Collins told
him he was a great advertisement for multiculturalism. The man's obvious
aim was to provoke the audience to violence. He didn't succeed, but as
the speaker said later he could not refrain from calling him a few names,
of which "ignorant lunatic" was the most printable.
Typically, the media referred to the Free Speech League in disparaging
terms, with quotes from the Communists. One TV station opened its 11
p.m. broadcast with a reference to "Holocaust-denier Doug Collins,"
which is a lie, although Mr. Collins questions the six million story.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation gleefully quoted a protester as
saying that public premises should not be used by "racists and right
wingers" and that Collins and Christie would be dogged by protests like
this wherever they appeared.
Mr. Collins's speech - which he insisted on delivering in spite of the
din - had nothing to do with racism. The title of the address was "The
NDP's attack on Free Speech." (For those not familiar with the situation
in British Columbia, the New Democratic Party socialist government has
passed misnamed "human rights" laws that have specifically removed the
right to free speech. Something that does not seem to worry many in the
media.)
Mr. Collins has twice been hauled before rights tribunals for columns
he has written. The one that really got to his critics was headed
"Hollywood Propaganda" and dealt with the movie Schindler's List, which
he dubbed Swindler's List. Subsequently, a complaint to the Thought
Police was laid by the Canadian Jewish Congress.
After going over the media coverage of the library outrage, Mr. Collins
said it was no wonder people were turning more and more to the Internet
to find out what is going on.
For that reason he has provided us with the main points of what he had
to say - to the extent that he was allowed to make them. Typically, not
a word of his speech was reported in the mainstream media. The Vancouver
Sun has not even mentioned the riot , but one can imagine the
international media furore there would have been if right wingers had
tried to stop a leftist or a Jewish Congress meeting.
Here is Mr. Collins"s report:
I said there was a lot of talk about hate groups these days, and that
the law-abiding Free Speech League has been described that way. But if
anyone wanted to see hate in action, they had only to be present tonight
in the Vancouver Public Library.
I described the rioters as B.C. Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh's shock
troops - Red Fascists whose aim was to terrify people into staying away
from the library.
Why the A.G.'s shock troops? Because the chief organizer of this riot
was Alan Dutton of CAERS, the Canadian Anti-Racism and Research Society,
which should more properly be called the Anti-Free Speech League. Dutton
is a communist and receives government grants through the
Multiculturalism and Immigration Community Liaison Branch of about
$100,000 a year, a unit controlled by Dosanjh. So far this year, Dutton
has been given $92,000. Last year it was about $99,000. In the three
years up to 1996 he got $741,000 from all government sources, federal as
well as provincial. I said it was disgraceful that taxpayers should be
forced to subsidize such a man, for this was not the first time he had
prevented people from speaking. He even boasts about it.
Dutton does physically what the NDP government does by other means. It
was interesting, I said, that while Dutton directs his Red Fascists, the
Attorney General is trying to quash my application for a judicial review
of the Human Rights Code, which in effect is an appeal designed to render
ultra vires a law that totalitarians would approve of. Dutton and Dosanjh
move in symbiotic tandem.
The Code is a blatant attempt to censor free speech and a free press,
and has been described as such by the B.C. Press Council, whose counsel
has stated that the law "is an attempt to stifle speech that is not
criminal". I showed the audience a front page newspaper headline of June
24, 1993, which read: "B.C. ends free speech guarantee."
Other points:
•In a tribunal hearing, the truth is no defence.
•There is no appeal within the framework of the Act. All that a victim
of this legislation can do, is to apply to the courts for a judicial review,
which is expensive.
• Artistic and academic work is no defence.
•The tribunal's adjudicator is judge, jury and prosecutor.
•Complainants get legal aid, no matter how wealthy they are. If Bill
Gates were to make a complaint, he could get legal aid. The target of
the complaint does not, unless is he is a pauper. The North Shore News
was forced to spend $203,000 defending me in my first tribunal, and it
was money down the drain even though I was acquitted of spreading
hatred. The verdict might have been different, but the adjudicator knew
quite well that a guilty verdict would have led to a judicial review in
which it would be shown that the B.C. law is unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, she took the opportunity of describing the Hollywood
Propaganda column as "mean-spirited" and "anti-Semitic" (but obviously
not anti-Semitic enough to warrant a guilty verdict).
To repeat, costs are not recoverable. which means that newspaper
publishers are not lightly going to risk having complaints laid against
their writers.
I told the audience that the law is a Heresy Act and a Censorship Law.
It states: “No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
published issued or displayed any statement or publication, notice,
sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that “indicates
discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a
group or class of persons, or is likely to expose a person or a group
of persons to hatred or contempt:
No proof of actual harm is necessary. "Likely" is good enough. It is
clear that anyone who tells a Newfie joke could be hauled before a
tribunal for exposing Newfoundlanders to "hatred or contempt".
As stated, I have been named before two tribunals. I refused to appear
before the second one, however, describing it as a kangaroo court.
The complaint in the second case was lodged by Harry Abrams of the
Victoria branch of B'Nai Brith. It involved four columns, including
"Hollywood Propaganda", which had been dismissed by the previous
tribunal. Clearly, the rights maniacs have never heard of something
called double jeopardy.
The adjudicator fined the North Shore News and me $2,000, ordered the
newspaper to print his reasons for judgment (which no ordinary court
could do, and is a direct interference with freedom of the press ) and
instructed me not to write anything that might annoy Jews in future,
which amounts to prior restraint. As I told the audience - those who
managed to get past the leftist lunatics, that is, - I have marched on
regardless.
Interestingly, he in effect admitted that the columns were not hate
literature.
"Individually, the columns do not express hatred or contempt., but
collectively they do."
I described that as a neat piece of politically correct alchemy.
As I told the audience, I have marched on regardless.
To the accompaniment of an incredible din, I read out part of the Press
Council statement on the decision made by the second tribunal.
“The B.C. Press Council Wednesday issued a statement deploring the
decision of the Human Rights Tribunal in the Doug Collins case, saying
it appears to be the first time in Canadian history that a
government-appointed tribunal such as this has convicted a newspaper and
its columnist of violating content standards set by a legislature.
“The Council maintains the position it has held since 1993, namely that
the speech restriction in the revised code are an unjustified violation
of the principle of freedom of the press.”
The Press Council has also stated that the B.C. Human Rights Code is
the most significant legislative infringement of press freedom in the
history of B.C., and that nothing like it has been seen since the
Province entered Confederation in 1871.
The Hollywood Propaganda column did not say that the Holocaust as such
was propaganda. It referred to the fact that "Schindler's List" must
have been the 555th. movie or TV feature on the same subject - a never
ending stream - and that I was tired of hate literature in the form of
films.
After the Canadian Jewish Congress had stated it was pondering legal
action against me, I wrote a second column in which I said that I too
was pondering, but not pandering. And certainly not to the CJC.
I pointed out, too, that if I had been writing hate literature I would
have been prosecuted under the federal hate laws, which makes such stuff
a criminal offence.
Why the speech-restricting Code? Here I turned to the statement by the
Human Rights Commission lawyer at the first tribunal, who declared: "The
criminal standard of proof (under the federal hate laws) makes enforcement
of the hate laws difficult." In other words, they need
their own, catch-all (and unconstitutional) law .
Cabinet minister Corky Evans said, "we need this law because the courts
don't always do what we want them to do."
Mike Harcourt, who was premier when the Rights Act was changed to
eliminate the free speech guarantee, stated:
"We can have liberty as long as it doesn't offend anyone!"
Compare such rubbish, I said, with statements make by Americans
defending the speech-guaranteeing First Amendment:
Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Freedom of speech involves the right to think
the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the
unchallengeable."
Judge Robert Warren: "The suppression of speech, even where it has
little value and great costs, amounts to government thought control."
What is free speech? As George Orwell told his critics in the 1940s:
"Free speech is my right to say what you don't want to hear."
There was more , but it will probably have to wait for a book. The
fight will go on, I said, and we must win. If we don't, say goodbye to
whatever remains of free speech in the True North.
My E-Mail address is Douglas...@bc.sympatico.ca And if you want
my book _Here We Go Again!,_ which contains 100 columns including the
offending ones and many others like them, get in touch with me and I
will give you the requisite address. The book costs $18.95 post paid. <end>
--
************************************************************
* "What sort of truth is it that needs protection?" *
* Auberon Waugh - The London Daily Telegraph - May 9, 1992 *
************************************************************
David Balke
that we are NOT in the US. Canada does not guarantee liberty but rather
license. You are allowed to do things is the accepted cultural model. You
do not have the right to hurt me in anyway. I'm not very familiar with the
details here and condemn any undo breach of the constitution but do favour
limitation of improper propaganda. I don't think that anyone has the right
to say absolutely anything they want to. I hear enough Anti-semitic
theories in private circles that I don't want to hear that drivel in the
press as well and I think there are many circumstances where authors must be
held accountable even when they don't expressly say -" Shoot that kike over
there, he's ruined your blue-eyed European life"
Good luck with your challenge if the situation is as dire as you say. One
of the reasons it's nice to live in Canada though is the fact we don't have
to listen to pig headed protofascists. Using the term Red fascists maynot
be to your benefit as many would feel you're speaking non-sense.
ChefDave
Orest Slepokura
<bal...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0
ChefDave (to repeat one line) wrote:
> Good luck with your challenge if the situation is as dire as you say.
Thanks.
As for the term "Red fascists," I find it being used more often up here in the
"true north strong and (only sometimes) free." The article (copied below)
which appeared in the latest issue of _Alberta Report_ (a sister
publication of _B.C. Report_) makes an unabashed use of the term.
-Orest Slepokura
FYI:
ECLECTICA | Kevin Michael Grace (kmg...@home.com)
Alberta Report (a...@incentre.net) | October 11, 1999
UJJAL'S STORM TROOPERS
When is a riot not a riot? When it happens in Vancouver and its target is
"extremists." On September 30 a mob of 100 multicultural activists
attempted to prevent retired journalist Doug Collins and his lawyer Doug
Christie from addressing a meeting at the main branch of the Vancouver
Public
Library. Not so ironically, the subject of the meeting was the NDP
govemment's suppression of free speech.
The mob broke through two barricades, injuring policemen; one arrest was
made. It attempted to drown out Mr. Collins; those v/ho wanted to hear him
were either prevented from entering or thought better of it when confronted
with the violence. The _Vancouver_Sun_ did not deign to report the fracas;
the Vancouver _Province_ treated it as comedy: "Put Dougs Collins and
Christie inside a library and I00-odd protesters outside. and you get
enough noise to defeat a battalion of shushing librarians." How droll.
Left unreported was that the riot was fomented by professional "anti-racist"
and Communist Allan Dutton; and thus Vancouver's finest had been assaulted
by thugs subsidized by B.C.'s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney
General Ujjal Dusanjh, Mr. Dutton, who vowed to CBC Radio he would continue to
oppose with force what the _Province_ derisively calls "free speech"
meetings (again, sarcastic quotation marks in the original), has for
several years received approximately $100,000 annually from Mr. Dosanih's
Multiculturalism and Immigration Community Liaison Branch.
Mr. Dosanjh, a professional anti-tacist himself, is likely to be chosen the
next premier of B.C., despite his professed diffidence. He claims the rough
and tumble of NDP politics offends his sensitive nature, but anyone who
funds red fascists has nothing to learn about playing hardball.
WHEN SACRILEGE IS SACRED
All the usual suspects--Susan Sarandon, Kurt Vonnegut,Norman Mailer, Joan
Didion, William Styron, E.L. Doctorow, Rob Reiner, Arthur Miller, Terence
McNally, Susan Sontag, etc.--have rushed to the defence of an exhibition of
obscene art at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. "Sensation: Young British
Artists from the Saatchi Collection," has been described as "sick" by New
York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who has pulled city funding from the
museum. As Tony Snow reports in an October I column
(wwwjewishworldreviewcom/tony/snow.html), "The show features the work of
young Britons, 'Including at Chris Ofili, creator of a work titled, The
Holy Virgin Mary. The painting depicts the Holy Mother in unusual straits.
A lacquered clump of elephant dung decorates her left breast, and a
veritable snowfall of pornography--mostly, pictures of women's private
partts--fills the air around her."
The literati have made the predictable (and absurd) charge that Mr. Giuliani
has trampled on Mr. Ofili's First Amendment rights, never more sacred than
when somone is defiling the sacred. Mr. Giuliani's supporters, however,
prefer not to address the issue of anti-Christian bigotry directly; they
would rather play the "What if" game. Mr. Snow is one of many pundits who
has invoked the holy memory of The Man Who Dared to Dream: "If someone were
to replace the Virgin Mother in the painting with Martin Luther King Jr.,
Janet Reno would be drawing up a hate-crimes indictment." This is
patronizing and offensive. Do they really mean to suggest that American
blacks have substituted worship of Our Lord with the idolatry of a tribal
fetish, Dr King? Or are they suggesting only that blacks are too stupid to
understand blasphemy?
FEET OF CLAY
In any event, "Dr." King is not worthy of veneration. He was a cheat whose
Boston University doctoral thesis was almost wholly plagiarized, an orgiast
and no mean blasphemer himself. As proof of the latter, the Council of
Conservative Citizens website (www.cofcc.org) quotes from the January 19,
1998, _Newsweek_: "January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King
Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme
Court, listening as lawyers argued _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan_, a
landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama
... That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI
bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of
glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries
of "I'm ----ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Some hero!
PURPLE HAZE
Mr. Dosanjh's likely rival for the NDP leadership, professional turncoat
Gordon Wilson, is another who has wrapped himself in Dr. King's mantle.
His claims to have been present (at the age of 13) at the martyr's 1963 "I
have a dream" speech in Washington and (again as a boy) to have comforted a
Kenyan woman as she died in his arms, have made him a laughingstock. Mr.
Wilson also claims (like every other boomer) to have been at Woodstock. His
whoppers suggest he foolishly ignored the famous warning to "stay away from
the brown acid." <end>
Neil
> All the usual suspects--Susan Sarandon, Kurt Vonnegut,Norman Mailer, Joan
> Didion, William Styron, E.L. Doctorow, Rob Reiner, Arthur Miller, Terence
> McNally, Susan Sontag, etc.--have rushed to the defence of an exhibition of
> obscene art at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. "Sensation: Young British Artists
> from the Saatchi Collection," has been described as "sick" by New York City
> Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who has pulled city funding from the museum.
A pity that. I always had great faith in Giuliani, as a statesman and lawyer.
I have no doubt whatsoever that he knows what he is doing goes counter to all
his instincts as a lawyer and a supporter of basic constitutional principles,
particularly the 1st Amendment. He is simply not stupid enough to actually
believe he should be threatening to pull funding from this museum because of
the content of its art. Unfortunately, that only lowers my image of him,
because this means he is deliberately ignoring his true feelings in order to
play to the vote-carrying audience he wishes to pander to. In other words,
he's just like everyone else.
-N
Orest Slepokura
<ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Orest Slepokura wrote:
>
> > All the usual suspects--Susan Sarandon, Kurt Vonnegut,Norman Mailer, Joan
> > Didion, William Styron, E.L. Doctorow, Rob Reiner, Arthur Miller, Terence
> > McNally, Susan Sontag, etc.--have rushed to the defence of an exhibition of
> > obscene art at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. "Sensation: Young British Artists
> > from the Saatchi Collection," has been described as "sick" by New York City
> > Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who has pulled city funding from the museum.
>
> A pity that. I always had great faith in Giuliani, as a statesman and lawyer.
> I have no doubt whatsoever that he knows what he is doing goes counter to all
> his instincts as a lawyer and a supporter of basic constitutional principles,
> particularly the 1st Amendment. He is simply not stupid enough to actually
> believe he should be threatening to pull funding from this museum because of
> the content of its art. Unfortunately, that only lowers my image of him,
> because this means he is deliberately ignoring his true feelings in order to
> play to the vote-carrying audience he wishes to pander to. In other words,
> he's just like everyone else.
>
> -N
0=0=0=0=0=0
Neil,
I agree with you about New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. He is an opportunist in
this issue. Politicians are usually like that, looking for some advantage. It
is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
hypocritical.
Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
wrecks aren't funny any
more.
IOW, it would be in extremely poor taste (Cleese felt) to run the sketch--this
from a comedy troupe that virtually specialized in outrageously poor taste. I
doubt, however, artists and entertainers, writers and intellectuals on either
side of the Big Pond will rush to protest Cleese's act of self-censorship. No.
They'll "understand" the need for "sensitivity" in the matter.
As for the Sensation Collection--with its sacreligious art--being displayed at a
museum in Brooklyn, it comes but a few weeks after a nutzi in the American
South killed, wounded and terrorized hundreds of worshippers in a Baptist
Church. But, "So what," eh?--even if the by-product is anything but
enlightenment wrought by an aesthetic experience through the medium of
art.
Camille Paglia [Slate, October 6, 1999]:
http://www.salon1999.com/people/col/pagl/1999/10/06/sensate/print.html
<quote>
That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice. The Brooklyn
show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
demonstrator outside the museum on opening day. Is this the destructive train
of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
<end-quote>
-Orest Slepokura
Michel Catudal
>
> <quote>
> That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
> about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
> Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice. The Brooklyn
> show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
> a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
> demonstrator outside the museum on opening day. Is this the destructive train
> of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
> <end-quote>
>
> -Orest Slepokura
>
No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are. If art
is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
be. Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.
I have a question for Neil,
Do you know if the law that prohibits swearing in front of women and children in Michigan
is currently being challenged by the ACLU? Here you can do jail time if caught swearing
in front of a woman or a child. Swearing using obsenities that is. Actually the law goes
farther as it only has be heard by a woman or child.
It is rarely enforced but has been not long ago, a man from downstate was on vacation
up north and got to swear a bit, bad luck in fishing perhaps. Some lady with virgin ears
over heard him and complained and a cop arrested the man. He was then charged under the
law. He has lost his case, I was told that the ACLU was to appeal.
--
Tanné du plantage avec Ti-Mou?
C'est l'temps d'essayer Linux
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat/
We have software, food, music, news, search,
history, electronics and genealogy pages.
John Carrick
Well, certainly, "Red fascist" is an oxymoron.
It makes as much sense as "dry water".
For most of us "red" denotes far-left extremism.
For most of us "fascist" denotes far-right extremism.
Your correspondent's error is to confuse ideology with methodology.
What he *has* correct is the understanding that totalitarian *methods*
are equally available to both the extreme right and the extreme left.
What he ignores is that the same brutality is used by the right and
the left *to achieve different ends*.
If you died at the hands of Hitler or Stalin, or of Pinocher or Mao,
you were still a victim.
But right-wing and left-wing regimes kill different sorts of people
for very different reasons. In general right-wingers go after
minorities and people of conscience. Left-wingers go after those who
possess power and wealth.
Those who see no difference between Hitler and Stalin, because both
were mass murderers. must also see no difference between a homicidal
rapist and a murderous bank robber.
I repeat, people do the same things for quite different reasons.
Michael
>
> > Using the term Red fascists may not be to your benefit as many would feel you're speaking non-sense.
>
> Well, certainly, "Red fascist" is an oxymoron.
>
> It makes as much sense as "dry water".
>
> For most of us "red" denotes far-left extremism.
> For most of us "fascist" denotes far-right extremism.
>
> Your correspondent's error is to confuse ideology with methodology.
>
> What he *has* correct is the understanding that totalitarian *methods*
> are equally available to both the extreme right and the extreme left.
>
> What he ignores is that the same brutality is used by the right and
> the left *to achieve different ends*.
>
> If you died at the hands of Hitler or Stalin, or of Pinocher or Mao,
> you were still a victim.
>
> But right-wing and left-wing regimes kill different sorts of people
> for very different reasons. In general right-wingers go after
> minorities and people of conscience. Left-wingers go after those who
> possess power and wealth.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Left-wingers go after people with opinions they disagree
with. Nobody in Communist Russia was allowed to criticize the government
and get away with it. Not like in the US where people are allowed to say
whatever they want.
>
> Those who see no difference between Hitler and Stalin, because both
> were mass murderers. must also see no difference between a homicidal
> rapist and a murderous bank robber.
You are a very sick person to conceive of such a demented analogy.
>
> I repeat, people do the same things for quite different reasons.
And you clearly think that when leftists kill people they have a good
reason.
Michael
John Carrick
>> What he *has* correct is the understanding that totalitarian *methods*
>> are equally available to both the extreme right and the extreme left.
>>
>> What he ignores is that the same brutality is used by the right and
>> the left *to achieve different ends*.
>>
>> If you died at the hands of Hitler or Stalin, or of Pinocher or Mao,
>> you were still a victim.
>>
>> But right-wing and left-wing regimes kill different sorts of people
>> for very different reasons. In general right-wingers go after
>> minorities and people of conscience. Left-wingers go after those who
>> possess power and wealth.
>
> Bzzzt. Wrong.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about, when you tell me
I am wrong.
I don't make it a habit to be wrong about anything that I have given
careful thought to.
And I am not wrong this time.
> Left-wingers go after people with opinions they disagree with.
That is sheer stupidity. You are making the same mistake made by the
original poster. *****BOTH***** left-wing and right-wing ideologues
attack those that they don't agree with. And *****BOTH*****, when
they are in power, have been known to exterminate those who oppose
them.
It is sheer stupidity for anyone to suggest that either the left or
the right has had a monopoly on stifling dissent and murdering
opponents. There are numerous examples in this century on both sides
of the ledger.
>Nobody in Communist Russia was allowed to criticize the government
>and get away with it.
I see, whereas in Hitler's Germany.................?
........in Mussolini's Italy........?
........in Franco's Spain.........?
........in Salazar's Portugal....?
........in Batista's Cuba.........?
........in Duvalier's Haiti........?
........in Pinochet's Chile......?
These were all totalitarian ***Right-wing*** regimes, where
extermination of left-wing opponents was ruthlessly pursued.
(And there are dozen's of other less well-known examples.)
>Not like in the US where people are allowed to say
>whatever they want.
Fortunately, people in most of the countries in the world enjoy
considerable freedom of speech, and in many cases speech is at least
as free as it is in the U.S. Freedom of speech, of the press, and of
association were not invented in the United States.
>> Those who see no difference between Hitler and Stalin, because both
>> were mass murderers. must also see no difference between a homicidal
>> rapist and a murderous bank robber.
>
> You are a very sick person to conceive of such a demented analogy.
Fuck off! Only a moron calls people "sick", because he doesn't like
their politics. The analogy is appropriate.
>> I repeat, people do the same things for quite different reasons.
>
> And you clearly think that when leftists kill people they have a good
>reason.
Well, of course when leftists kill people, they have reasons for doing
so. And they must consider them good reasons.
And, of course when rightists kill people, they too have reasons for
doing so, And they must consider then good reasons.
Open you bloody eyes to the fact that people at both political
extremes have committed mass murder in order to take and keep power.
Your notion that only those on the left have blood on their hands is
childish and ignorant.
John Carrick
>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
>hypocritical.
>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
>wrecks aren't funny any more.
You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
Try listening to jokes about dying parents when your mother is on her
deathbed.
John Carrick
A suggestion: Unless you are good at handling being contradicted, ypu
should delete this post without reading it.)
>> That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
>> about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
>> Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice.
Not courage? Not independence? Not a willingness to look at things
differently?
>>The Brooklyn show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
>> a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
>> demonstrator outside the museum on opening day.
Er......no. Any individual who would paint and display such a placard
was obviously deranged long before he or she heard about the show or
the "Madonna" painting. The controversy merely provided a platform
for the expression of that person's religious hatred.
>>Is this the destructive train of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
Challenging orthodoxies is one of the responsibilities of artists. I
would have thought that everyone of even moderate intellect would
know that.
>No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
>be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are.
Do you always use the term, "racist", so carelessly? Roman Catholics
and Jews don't belong to different "races", according to any meaning
of the term that I know. They are two distinct *religious* groups.
>If art is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
>be.
Not at all. Artists have the task of moving society in new directions
by questioning orthodoxies. Any artist who merely reflected
widespread social values would be a hack.
> Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
>taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
>humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.
What you are talking about is not education. It is, in fact, its
opposite, indoctrination. True education must have as its goal the
opening up of the human mind to a wide range of possibilities, all of
them different, and all of them worthwhile.
(Parochial schools know nothing of this, of course. Racism, sexism,
classism, homophobia, and a whole host of other societal ills have
their origins in indoctrination, much of it religious.)
At any rate, it is easy to understand the upset that Catholics feel,
when confronted by a work of art, that satirizes their near-deity,
Mary.
We are all most vulnerable to attacks upon those of our our beliefs
that have the shakiest foundations. The majority of adherants to the
Christian religion, including Roman Catholics, are aware at some
deeper level of their consciousness, that many of their belifs are
quite irrational.
When the Pope reminded Catholics this summer that neither heaven nor
hell is to be considered a *physical* place, he was attempting to
introduce a higher level of rationality into their belief structure.
It seems that his remarks have disappeared withouy a ripple. People
continue to talk about their departed loved ones "looking down on them
from on high". Most people continue to deal with their mortality by
simply denying it.
It is in their insecurity, that New York Catholics, including their
mayor, rose up in "righteous wrath", when they found one of their most
precious icons being subjected to ridicule.
Like many other Catholics, Mayor Giulliani, was, I am sure, offended
by the painting/collage. The suggestion that his motives for
attacking the directors of the Brooklyn Museum of art for mounting
the exhibit of contemporary Britsh art, were purely political is
foolish.
There is no reason to believe that he was not reacting defensively
toward a work of art which challenged one of his dearest beliefs ...a
belief which is vulnerable, because it has no rational foundation.
Orest Slepokura
Carrick) wrote:
>
> >It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> >different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> >hypocritical.
>
> >Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> >Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> >comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> >televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> >this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> >wrecks aren't funny any more.
>
> You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
0=0=0=0
Small point.
I've seen the Monty Python crew poke fun at various tragedies, including
the sketch of two locomotives colliding head-on.
Sensitivity that chooses when and where to be "sensitive" and otherwise does
its level best to trample on people's sensitivities is not being
sensitive, but simply political.
To be "sensitive" on Tuesday and Thursday, but meanly insensitive on
Monday and Friday, is simply PR politics, little more.
-Orest Slepokura
0=0=0=0
>
> It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
>
> *Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
>
> But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
>
> Try listening to jokes about dying parents when your mother is on her
> deathbed.
--
Michael
<snip>
> Your notion that only those on the left have blood on their hands is
> childish and ignorant.
I don't have that notion. What I said was that the leftists one
normally sees, i.e. in North America, seem to be rather intolerant of
freedom of expression (unless, of course, it's pornographic, in which
case they'll fight to the death to defend it).
Michael
Michael
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> >>hypocritical.
> >
> >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> >
> >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> >
> >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> >
> >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> >
> >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
>
>
In that case, given that the human population of the planet just
reached six billion, the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.
Michael
Michel Catudal
>
> >No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
> >be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are.
>
> Do you always use the term, "racist", so carelessly? Roman Catholics
> and Jews don't belong to different "races", according to any meaning
> of the term that I know. They are two distinct *religious* groups.
>
Racist as used today applies to ethnic groups as well as races. Call as you wish
when dealing with Jews or other people, the fact remains that the behavior of the
morons involved is similar, they hate people who aren't like them or don't appear
to be like them by their looks, language or way of life.
> >If art is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
> >be.
>
> Not at all. Artists have the task of moving society in new directions
> by questioning orthodoxies. Any artist who merely reflected
> widespread social values would be a hack.
>
Makers of those so called pieces of art have little to no influence on people.
> > Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
> >taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
> >humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.
>
> What you are talking about is not education. It is, in fact, its
> opposite, indoctrination. True education must have as its goal the
> opening up of the human mind to a wide range of possibilities, all of
> them different, and all of them worthwhile.
>
Not indoctrination, you educate your children so they know that it is irrelevant
what other humans look or sound like. You will find out that most racists have racists
parents or friends.
> (Parochial schools know nothing of this, of course. Racism, sexism,
> classism, homophobia, and a whole host of other societal ills have
> their origins in indoctrination, much of it religious.)
>
Fundy schools often teach the kids to hate "non christians". To them "non christians" are
those not belonging to their flock.
> At any rate, it is easy to understand the upset that Catholics feel,
> when confronted by a work of art, that satirizes their near-deity,
> Mary.
>
I'm catholic and I don't give a rat's ass.
> We are all most vulnerable to attacks upon those of our our beliefs
> that have the shakiest foundations. The majority of adherants to the
> Christian religion, including Roman Catholics, are aware at some
> deeper level of their consciousness, that many of their belifs are
> quite irrational.
>
Yeah right! Christians believe the contrary.
> When the Pope reminded Catholics this summer that neither heaven nor
> hell is to be considered a *physical* place, he was attempting to
> introduce a higher level of rationality into their belief structure.
> It seems that his remarks have disappeared withouy a ripple. People
> continue to talk about their departed loved ones "looking down on them
> from on high". Most people continue to deal with their mortality by
> simply denying it.
>
It is probably easier to deal with the issue this way.
> It is in their insecurity, that New York Catholics, including their
> mayor, rose up in "righteous wrath", when they found one of their most
> precious icons being subjected to ridicule.
>
The mayor is just playing politics. Fundies tend to vote more than normal people
so a politicians must suck up to them.
> Like many other Catholics, Mayor Giulliani, was, I am sure, offended
> by the painting/collage. The suggestion that his motives for
> attacking the directors of the Brooklyn Museum of art for mounting
> the exhibit of contemporary Britsh art, were purely political is
> foolish.
>
Not really, most of today's catholic in the USA are christian by their parents, they
do not practice religion as much as you may think. Most of the catholics that I know
only go to church for baptisms, marriages and funerals. There are fanatic among
catholics but most of the fundies aren't catholic. You are at least 30-40 years
behind.
> There is no reason to believe that he was not reacting defensively
> toward a work of art which challenged one of his dearest beliefs ...a
> belief which is vulnerable, because it has no rational foundation.
Not really for that reason. Fundies see religion as a major part of their lives,
very often more important than their own family. Hitting on their deities
is a major insult.
Michael
>
> A suggestion: Unless you are good at handling being contradicted, ypu
> should delete this post without reading it.)
>
> >> That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
> >> about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
> >> Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice.
>
> Not courage? Not independence? Not a willingness to look at things
> differently?
>
> >>The Brooklyn show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
> >> a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
> >> demonstrator outside the museum on opening day.
>
> Er......no. Any individual who would paint and display such a placard
> was obviously deranged long before he or she heard about the show or
> the "Madonna" painting. The controversy merely provided a platform
> for the expression of that person's religious hatred.
Do you have any idea how stupid you have just made yourself look? There
is no difference whatsoever in the hate-propaganda in either case, other
than perhaps the fact that the exhibit was the initial hate statement,
whereas the other hate statements were merely reactions. You carry
doublethink to new levels.
>
> >>Is this the destructive train of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
>
> Challenging orthodoxies is one of the responsibilities of artists. I
> would have thought that everyone of even moderate intellect would
> know that.
But only Christian orthodoxies can be challenged in our so-called
"free" society. Challenging any other orthodoxy is considered a "hate
crime" punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Are you so dull that you
cannot see the glaring double-standard operating here? There should be a
level playing field, and any fair-minded person can see that. If spewing
hatred against one identifiable group is accepted, then all hate
propaganda must be accepted, but if hate propaganda is deemed
UNacceptable, then ALL identifiable groups (including Christians) must
be protected from these vicious hate-mongerers.
> >No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
> >be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are.
>
> Do you always use the term, "racist", so carelessly? Roman Catholics
> and Jews don't belong to different "races", according to any meaning
> of the term that I know. They are two distinct *religious* groups.
>
> >If art is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
> >be.
>
> Not at all. Artists have the task of moving society in new directions
> by questioning orthodoxies. Any artist who merely reflected
> widespread social values would be a hack.
Then by your definition, the only real artists are in jail.
> > Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
> >taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
> >humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.
>
> What you are talking about is not education. It is, in fact, its
> opposite, indoctrination. True education must have as its goal the
> opening up of the human mind to a wide range of possibilities, all of
> them different, and all of them worthwhile.
>
> (Parochial schools know nothing of this, of course. Racism, sexism,
> classism, homophobia, and a whole host of other societal ills have
> their origins in indoctrination, much of it religious.)
And much of it leftist. It is leftists who rushed to defend Eli
Hanger's kiddie porn exhibit in which children were portrayed in
degrading and perverted ways, and it is leftists like yourself that rush
to defend hate crimes against an identifiable religious group. And, in
fact, your own statements would be land you in jail if they were
directed against any other group other than Christians.
> At any rate, it is easy to understand the upset that Catholics feel,
> when confronted by a work of art, that satirizes their near-deity,
> Mary.
>
> We are all most vulnerable to attacks upon those of our our beliefs
> that have the shakiest foundations. The majority of adherants to the
> Christian religion, including Roman Catholics, are aware at some
> deeper level of their consciousness, that many of their belifs are
> quite irrational.
Speaking of irrationality, take a look at the "personal ads" in that
Toronto leftist rag, "Now." In fact, take a look at their political
commentary if you want to see irrationality at its best.
> When the Pope reminded Catholics this summer that neither heaven nor
> hell is to be considered a *physical* place, he was attempting to
> introduce a higher level of rationality into their belief structure.
> It seems that his remarks have disappeared withouy a ripple. People
> continue to talk about their departed loved ones "looking down on them
> from on high". Most people continue to deal with their mortality by
> simply denying it.
Whereas leftists like yourself and the Brooklyn hate-mongerers deal
with it scatalogically.
> It is in their insecurity, that New York Catholics, including their
> mayor, rose up in "righteous wrath", when they found one of their most
> precious icons being subjected to ridicule.
> Like many other Catholics, Mayor Giulliani, was, I am sure, offended
> by the painting/collage. The suggestion that his motives for
> attacking the directors of the Brooklyn Museum of art for mounting
> the exhibit of contemporary Britsh art, were purely political is
> foolish.
> There is no reason to believe that he was not reacting defensively
> toward a work of art which challenged one of his dearest beliefs ...a
> belief which is vulnerable, because it has no rational foundation.
You silly sophomoric nitwit. Giulliani was not suggesting that those
hate-mongering leftist scatophiles be fined or imprisoned. He was merely
expressing the widely held view that taxpayers' money should not be used
to subsidize hate propaganda against an identifiable group. He would
have reacted the same way if the the victims had been members of any
other group. If the KKK had put up a similarly bigotted "art" exhibit,
with a different group as victims, reasonable people would have
condemned it the same way they condemn the Brooklyn exhibit. However, I
doubt very much that the crazies on the left would have rushed to defend
public funding of KKK hate-"art" as vigorously as they defend the public
funding of anti-Catholic hate-"art".
Everybody sees through this double standard. Nobody is being fooled by
it. You must either be really stupid, or just so crazed by your
ideological madness that you are blinded to the reality. You've never
read Orwell, have you?
Michael
Neil
> I don't have that notion. What I said was that the leftists one
> normally sees, i.e. in North America, seem to be rather intolerant of
> freedom of expression (unless, of course, it's pornographic, in which
> case they'll fight to the death to defend it).
United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the most powerful
conservative right-winger in North America today, is the single greatest enemy
the First Amendment has seen since Joseph McCarthy.
-N
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>
>
>A suggestion: Unless you are good at handling being contradicted, ypu
>should delete this post without reading it.)
>
>>> That a Jewish collector and a Jewish museum director had no compunction
>>> about selecting a parodic image of the Madonna from the whole of Chris
>>> Ofili's dung-bedecked oeuvre shows either stupidity or malice.
>
>Not courage? Not independence? Not a willingness to look at things
>differently?
>
>>>The Brooklyn show has fomented hatreds in this country -- as witnessed by the placard of
>>> a defaced Star of David carried, according to the New York Post, by a
>>> demonstrator outside the museum on opening day.
>
>Er......no. Any individual who would paint and display such a placard
>was obviously deranged long before he or she heard about the show or
>the "Madonna" painting. The controversy merely provided a platform
>for the expression of that person's religious hatred.
>
>>>Is this the destructive train of thought that the contemporary arts want to foster?"
>
>Challenging orthodoxies is one of the responsibilities of artists. I
>would have thought that everyone of even moderate intellect would
>know that.
>
>>No doubt about that, it is obviously racist but one of the basis of freedom is to
>>be able to express his or her opinion no matter how obnoxious they are.
>
>Do you always use the term, "racist", so carelessly? Roman Catholics
>and Jews don't belong to different "races", according to any meaning
>of the term that I know. They are two distinct *religious* groups.
>
>>If art is the way it is today it is because it reflects the way society is or claims to
>>be.
>
>Not at all. Artists have the task of moving society in new directions
>by questioning orthodoxies. Any artist who merely reflected
>widespread social values would be a hack.
>
>> Denying the existence of the problem isn't going to solve it. Action must be
>>taken to educate the adults and children about family values and respect for other
>>humans. This had to be done in the schooling system and on the medias.
>
>What you are talking about is not education. It is, in fact, its
>opposite, indoctrination. True education must have as its goal the
>opening up of the human mind to a wide range of possibilities, all of
>them different, and all of them worthwhile.
>
>(Parochial schools know nothing of this, of course. Racism, sexism,
>classism, homophobia, and a whole host of other societal ills have
>their origins in indoctrination, much of it religious.)
>
>At any rate, it is easy to understand the upset that Catholics feel,
>when confronted by a work of art, that satirizes their near-deity,
>Mary.
>
>We are all most vulnerable to attacks upon those of our our beliefs
>that have the shakiest foundations. The majority of adherants to the
>Christian religion, including Roman Catholics, are aware at some
>deeper level of their consciousness, that many of their belifs are
>quite irrational.
>
>When the Pope reminded Catholics this summer that neither heaven nor
>hell is to be considered a *physical* place, he was attempting to
>introduce a higher level of rationality into their belief structure.
>It seems that his remarks have disappeared withouy a ripple. People
>continue to talk about their departed loved ones "looking down on them
>from on high". Most people continue to deal with their mortality by
>simply denying it.
>
>It is in their insecurity, that New York Catholics, including their
>mayor, rose up in "righteous wrath", when they found one of their most
>precious icons being subjected to ridicule.
>
>Like many other Catholics, Mayor Giulliani, was, I am sure, offended
>by the painting/collage. The suggestion that his motives for
>attacking the directors of the Brooklyn Museum of art for mounting
>the exhibit of contemporary Britsh art, were purely political is
>foolish.
>
>There is no reason to believe that he was not reacting defensively
>toward a work of art which challenged one of his dearest beliefs ...a
>belief which is vulnerable, because it has no rational foundation.
Carrick and rationality has got to be the ulitmate oxymoron.
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
E. Barry Bruyea
It is clear that there is no way to cut and paste Carrick's post into
a thread entitled, "Brooklyn Museum of Art criticized For Displaying
Mohamed Covered In Elephant Dung." But he is certainly not alone in
his hypocrisy as has been shown many during the term of this
discussion. But then its not lilely any artist or museum would
display any symbolic art denigrating Islam, as they would fear the
death sentence that would immediately drop from above.
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
E. Barry Bruyea
Close, but no cigar. The advocates of Political Correctness are
presently holding the title and they tend to tilt to the left.
>
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>
>>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
>>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
>>hypocritical.
>
>>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
>>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
>>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
>>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
>>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
>>wrecks aren't funny any more.
>
>You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
>
>It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
>program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
>
>*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
>
>But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
>certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
>
>Try listening to jokes about dying parents when your mother is on her
>deathbed.
Or looking at a shit covered portrait of the Virgin Mary when you are
a devout Catholic.
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Neil
Please give me an example of these supposed "advocates of Political
Correctness" actually and in fact waging war against the First Amendment the
way Chief Justice Rehnquist has.
I'm not talking about silly rhetoric about ebonics and hyphenated Americans or
Canadians. I'm talking about actual, substantive assaults on the First
Amendment, and the general notion of free speech. I.e., the Government
influencing or restricting what kind of things we the people express as
opinions.
-N
john ramsay
>
> James Goneaux wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> > >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> > >>hypocritical.
> > >
> > >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> > >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> > >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> > >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> > >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> > >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> > >
> > >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> > >
> > >It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> > >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> > >
> > >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> > >
> > >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> > >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
> >
> >
> In that case, given that the human population of the planet just
> reached six billion, the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
> renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
> hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
> after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.
>
> Michael
Hi Michael, sounds like the artist achieved his purpose. He certainly
got you to make your statement above about overpopulation by humans
versus underpopulation by animals.
Aulne
Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
You make a good show asking for examples.
You're a total moron at providing any.
You stand tall sorting between silly and serious rhetoric.
You limp when it comes to actual substance.
Alain
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Carrick
>> >It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
>> >different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
>> >hypocritical.
>>
>> >Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
>> >Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
>> >comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
>> >televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
>> >this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
>> >wrecks aren't funny any more.
>>
>> You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
>
>
>Small point.
Yes, *quite* a small one, it turns out.
>I've seen the Monty Python crew poke fun at various tragedies, including
>the sketch of two locomotives colliding head-on.
>
>Sensitivity that chooses when and where to be "sensitive" and otherwise does
>its level best to trample on people's sensitivities is not being
>sensitive, but simply political.
>
>To be "sensitive" on Tuesday and Thursday, but meanly insensitive on
>Monday and Friday, is simply PR politics, little more.
You are completely mistaken.
There is an old expression: "Circumstances alter cases."
What it means is that something that is appropriate for one time and
place, may be inappropriate for another.
If someone's father had just taken his own life, you would refrain
from telling him a joke about suicide, although it might be
considered quite amusing and be well-received in other circumstances.
Having concern for the feelings of others is not merely political. It
is demonstrating one's humanity and decency. It is treating others as
we would wish them to treat us.
By the way, I have found that often the people who complain the
loudest about "political correctness" are those who want to be able to
use terms such as "nigger", "fag", "Jewboy", etc. as freely as they
wish. At the same time, the are enraged, when someone makes *them*
the subject of a racial or religious slur. This is having a double
standard, and is immature and unacceptable.
Tell me, please. Are you someone for who nothing is a problem so long
as it is happening to someone else? That would make you some sort of
conservative, wouldn't it?
John Carrick
>> I don't have that notion. What I said was that the leftists one
>> normally sees, i.e. in North America, seem to be rather intolerant of
>> freedom of expression (unless, of course, it's pornographic, in which
>> case they'll fight to the death to defend it).
>
>United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the most powerful
>conservative right-winger in North America today, is the single greatest enemy
>the First Amendment has seen since Joseph McCarthy.
Neil: I am surprised that you would attempt to carry on a dialogue
with someone as dim-witted.ignorant, opinionated, and self-interested
as this person.
Do you do so as an act of charity?
Hali
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> >>hypocritical.
> >
> >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> >
> >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> >
> >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> >
> >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> >
> >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
> >
> >deathbed.
>
> Or looking at a shit covered portrait of the Virgin Mary when you are
> a devout Catholic.
>
desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic
religious symbol.
> Barry Bruyea
> si...@sympatico.ca
--
Hali
(Aimer un ennemi est encore le meilleur moyen de s'en débarrasser)
Hali
> Neil: I am surprised that you would attempt to carry on a dialogue
> with someone as dim-witted.ignorant, opinionated, and self-interested
> as this person.
>
Moi aussi. Ne reponds pas a l'anti-Catholique.
> Do you do so as an act of charity?
E. Barry Bruyea
>On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
>
>> I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
>> desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
>> refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
>> symbol.
>
>Desecration of non-Christian symbols occurs on a regular basis in this
>society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
>political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
>
>I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
>
>-N
And your proof of this is?
>
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Neil
Neil
> Moi aussi. Ne reponds pas a l'anti-Catholique.
Oui.
Je suis aussi anti-juif, anti-musulman, anti-boudhist, anti-athee, et
anti-religion. Je suis un raciste et fasciste en tous egards.
Et maintenant, tu l'as 'en papier' comme evidence pour tes propres documents.
Enjoy!
-N
p.s. C'est a vous de comprendre les raisons pour lesquelles je peux dire des
choses tellement horribles sans m'inquieter et me facher meme pour un instant.
Neil
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:58:05 -0700, Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
> >
> And your proof of this is?
Proof of what?
Rudolph is a brilliant lawyer, well-versed in the First Amendment and only a
moderate conservative. He's no Beatty, but he's no Strom Thurmond either. I
don't believe for one second that he is following his true instincts in
attacking the museum's funding because of his disagreement with its artistic
content. Neither is it mere coincidence that he happens to be running for
Senate in what is going to be one of the most interesting, hotly-contested
elections of the year. Like Hillary's confused pandering to the Puerto Rican
vote, he's simply playing the political game.
-N
Hali
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
>
>
> Oui.
>
> Je suis aussi anti-juif, anti-musulman, anti-boudhist, anti-athee, et
> anti-religion. Je suis un raciste et fasciste en tous egards.
>
> Et maintenant, tu l'as 'en papier' comme evidence pour tes propres documents.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> -N
>
> p.s. C'est a vous de comprendre les raisons pour lesquelles je peux dire des
> choses tellement horribles sans m'inquieter et me facher meme pour un instant.
passe ke c l'internet pi tu t'en calisse de ce kon pense de toé....
Michael
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>
> > I don't have that notion. What I said was that the leftists one
> > normally sees, i.e. in North America, seem to be rather intolerant of
> > freedom of expression (unless, of course, it's pornographic, in which
> > case they'll fight to the death to defend it).
>
> United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the most powerful
> conservative right-winger in North America today, is the single greatest enemy
> the First Amendment has seen since Joseph McCarthy.
>
The fact that he's the only one you've been permitted to hear about
proves my point.
Michael
Michael
>
> Michael wrote:
> >
> > James Goneaux wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> > > >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> > > >>hypocritical.
> > > >
> > > >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> > > >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> > > >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> > > >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> > > >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> > > >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> > > >
> > > >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> > > >
> > > >It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> > > >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> > > >
> > > >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> > > >
> > > >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> > > >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
> > >
> > >
> > In that case, given that the human population of the planet just
> > reached six billion, the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
> > renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
> > hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
> > after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.
> >
>
> got you to make your statement above about overpopulation by humans
> versus underpopulation by animals.
I've never said that the exhibit should be closed down at all, any more
than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
should be subsidized by taxpayers.
Michael
Michael
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
>
> > desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
> > refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
> > symbol.
>
> Desecration of non-Christian symbols occurs on a regular basis in this
> society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
> political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
>
> I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
>
Michael
Hali
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
> >
> > >On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
> > >
> > >> I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
> > >> desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
> > >> refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
> > >> symbol.
> > >
> > >Desecration of non-Christian symbols occurs on a regular basis in this
> > >society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
> > >political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
> > >
> > >I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
> >
> >
>
> Proof of what?
>
> Rudolph is a brilliant lawyer, well-versed in the First Amendment and only a
> moderate conservative. He's no Beatty, but he's no Strom Thurmond either. I
> don't believe for one second that he is following his true instincts in
> attacking the museum's funding because of his disagreement with its artistic
> content.
I disagree. Giuliani might be moderate for a Republican, but he is also
a Roman Catholic, a political bully, and a bit of a megalomaniac. When
he decides he wants something done his way, he gets it. Period.
> Neither is it mere coincidence that he happens to be running for
> Senate in what is going to be one of the most interesting, hotly-contested
> elections of the year. Like Hillary's confused pandering to the Puerto Rican
> vote, he's simply playing the political game.
>
> -N
The people upstate must be having fits: the mayor of NYC running
against a liberal feminist democrat :) Either one of them would be
better than D'Amato was; neither will be as good as Moynihan was.
Neil
What in God's name are you talking about?
-N
Neil
> Neil wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Hali wrote:
> >
> > > I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
> > > desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
> > > refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
> > > symbol.
> >
> > Desecration of non-Christian symbols occurs on a regular basis in this
> > society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
> > political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
> >
> > I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
> >
> ...when he said what? "I'm going to hammer you Valentine"?
When he said "Members of organized religions are weak-minded."
He later qualified this in an interview with 20/20 to mean "some" members of
organized religions are weak-minded. In either case, he was speaking in
reference to the NYC controversy and the desire of certain pig-headed people
to have the _government_ legislate what they shall see or not see as a
solution to their being offended, rather than their own brains.
-N
Neil
> I've never said that the exhibit should be closed down at all, any
> more than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
> should be subsidized by taxpayers.
Art museums are not comparable to porno shops. And museums should be
subsidized by taxpayers, because we are not a soulless, mindless, empty
nation. If you don't like the content of a certain art exhibit, STAY AT HOME
and stick to watching your privatized non-subsidized television garbage.
-N
john ramsay
> than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
> should be subsidized by taxpayers.
>
Hi Michael, but Giuliani is attempting to do just that. Close not only
the exhibit but close the museum.
And in case you didn't notice, he's not doing it for savoury reasons.
He's running for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton. He needs all
the right-wing votes he can get.
But, as in most cases of censorship, it tends to backfire. Thousands
more people are taking in the exhibit than would have.
And the most cogent comment on the case was from a British art critic
who said on PBS radio the week before last that Giuliani was giving
undeserved recognition to a mediocre artist.
BTW, the case may go all the way to the Supreme Court, using
taxpayer's money.
Neil
> Hi Michael, but Giuliani is attempting to do just that. Close not only the
> exhibit but close the museum.
> And in case you didn't notice, he's not doing it for savoury reasons.
> He's running for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton. He needs all the
> right-wing votes he can get.
> But, as in most cases of censorship, it tends to backfire. Thousands more
> people are taking in the exhibit than would have.
> And the most cogent comment on the case was from a British art critic who
> said on PBS radio the week before last that Giuliani was giving undeserved
> recognition to a mediocre artist.
> BTW, the case may go all the way to the Supreme Court, using taxpayer's
> money.
Possible but doubtful. I haven't studied the precise legal issue in detail but
I'm guessing the core constitutional questions regarding the 1st Amendment and
government funding of artistic expression have already been dealt with.
-N
Michael
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>
> > more than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
> > should be subsidized by taxpayers.
>
They aren't SUPPOSED to be, but the Brooklyn Museum certainly is.
> And museums should be
> subsidized by taxpayers, because we are not a soulless, mindless, empty
> nation.
The soulless, mindless, empty "art" displayed at the Brooklyn Museum
says otherwise.
>If you don't like the content of a certain art exhibit, STAY AT HOME
> and stick to watching your privatized non-subsidized television garbage.
>
If you like to look at elephant crap so much, then PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
Why do you expect other people's hard-earned money to be confiscated to
provide you with dubious entertainment?
Also, when it comes to handing out tax dollars, it is government
bureaucrats who decide who is an "artist" and who isn't, and that sort
of "art" defines the establishment. Ergo, the establishment is
anti-Catholic.
Michael
Michael
> > than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
> > should be subsidized by taxpayers.
> >
>
> Hi Michael, but Giuliani is attempting to do just that. Close not only
> the exhibit but close the museum.
Where did you read that? Surely you aren't saying that leftists do not
believe in "freedom of hate propaganda" enough to dig into their own
pockets to subsidize it? It is only a lack of funding that would close
the Brooklyn Museum, and if leftists think that promoting hatred of
Roman Catholics is so important, they have the freedom to contribute to
a "hate fund" to keep it alive.
> And in case you didn't notice, he's not doing it for savoury reasons.
> He's running for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton. He needs all
> the right-wing votes he can get.
> But, as in most cases of censorship, it tends to backfire. Thousands
> more people are taking in the exhibit than would have.
> And the most cogent comment on the case was from a British art critic
> who said on PBS radio the week before last that Giuliani was giving
> undeserved recognition to a mediocre artist.
> BTW, the case may go all the way to the Supreme Court, using
> taxpayer's money.
Well, as somebody said earlier, change the title from "Mary" to
"Mohammed" (or any other non-Christian religious figure) and the
leftists would have that museum shut down faster than you can say
"freedom of expression," and the perpetrators of the exhibit would also
be indicted for hate crimes and end up behind bars, with leftists
screaming for their heads on a platter. What a bunch of hypocrites!
Michael
Michael
>
> "E. Barry Bruyea" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:56:34 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>It is interesting, though, that artists and intellectuals are really no
> > >>different in many ways from the pols they often like to dump on; no less
> > >>hypocritical.
> > >
> > >>Case in point: John Cleese of _Monty Python's Flying Circus_ (reported by CBC
> > >>Radio Two's arts broadcaster Michael Crabb today--October 8) is pulling a
> > >>comic sketch of a train wreck from the 30th anniversary MP'sFC show to be
> > >>televised later this month. Reason: The big train wreck in London earlier
> > >>this week which killed and maimed scores of passengers. Suddenly, train
> > >>wrecks aren't funny any more.
> > >
> > >You cannot be as heartless as you sound here.
> > >
> > >It would have been highly insensitive for the producers of this
> > >program not to have taken into account the recent Paddington tragedy.
> > >
> > >*Everything* is a fit subject for humour. ***EVERYTHING***
> > >
> > >But in the name of humanity there are times and places in which
> > >certain subject matter is properly seen as offensive and hurtful.
> > >
> > >deathbed.
> >
> > Or looking at a shit covered portrait of the Virgin Mary when you are
> > a devout Catholic.
> >
> desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
> refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic
> religious symbol.
>
Michael
Michael
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>
> > Neil wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I really don't understand how people who would be offended at the
> > > > desecration of a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Meshica religious symbol
> > > > refuse to acknowledge the bigotry in the desecration of a Catholic religious
> > > > symbol.
> > >
> > > society. Unlike Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, however, there is an enormous
> > > political bonus to be won in being the hero fighting the infidels in question.
> > >
> > > I hate to say it, but Jesse Ventura was right.
> > >
> > ...when he said what? "I'm going to hammer you Valentine"?
>
> When he said "Members of organized religions are weak-minded."
>
> He later qualified this in an interview with 20/20 to mean "some" members of
> organized religions are weak-minded. In either case, he was speaking in
> reference to the NYC controversy and the desire of certain pig-headed people
> to have the _government_ legislate what they shall see or not see as a
> solution to their being offended, rather than their own brains.
Your phrase "the desire of certain pig-headed people to have the
_government_ legislate what they shall see or not see," is one of the
best descriptions I've read of the agenda of the left in North America.
Take your blinkers off, pal.
Michael
Michael
john ramsay
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, john ramsay wrote:
>
> > exhibit but close the museum.
> > He's running for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton. He needs all the
> > right-wing votes he can get.
> > But, as in most cases of censorship, it tends to backfire. Thousands more
> > people are taking in the exhibit than would have.
> > And the most cogent comment on the case was from a British art critic who
> > said on PBS radio the week before last that Giuliani was giving undeserved
> > recognition to a mediocre artist.
> > BTW, the case may go all the way to the Supreme Court, using taxpayer's
> > money.
>
> I'm guessing the core constitutional questions regarding the 1st Amendment and
> government funding of artistic expression have already been dealt with.
>
> -N
Hi, it has already hit court. That alone is costing taxpayers money.
As it's an election issue Giuliani may choose to challenge the core
constitutional issues, obtaining publicity at taxpayer expense.
From the brief portion of the PBS radio report on the preliminary
court hearing that I caught the judge was pretty strict on freedom of
expression, but commentators also mentioned various other groups filing
briefs. Again costly to the taxpayer.
john ramsay
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > In that case, given that the human population of the planet just
> > > > > reached six billion, the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
> > > > > renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
> > > > > hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
> > > > > after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Michael, sounds like the artist achieved his purpose. He certainly
> > > > got you to make your statement above about overpopulation by humans
> > > > versus underpopulation by animals.
> > >
> > > I've never said that the exhibit should be closed down at all, any more
> > > than I've said that porno shops should be closed down. But neither
> > > should be subsidized by taxpayers.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > Hi Michael, but Giuliani is attempting to do just that. Close not only
> > the exhibit but close the museum.
>
> Where did you read that? Surely you aren't saying that leftists do not
> believe in "freedom of hate propaganda" enough to dig into their own
> pockets to subsidize it? It is only a lack of funding that would close
> the Brooklyn Museum, and if leftists think that promoting hatred of
> Roman Catholics is so important, they have the freedom to contribute to
> a "hate fund" to keep it alive.
>
Hi Michael, technically I did not read it but I did hear it on PBS
radio.
As far as the exhibit is concerned it was the museum staff who made
the choices. The exhibit had already run in London, England.
There is no conspiracy of leftists running either museum. There is no
conspiracy to promote hatred of Roman Catholics.
Indeed comparisons were made to libraries and freedom of speech and
reading. Most large public libraries contain both 'Mein Kampf' and 'Das
Kapital.'
The function of a library, and a museum for that matter, is freedom
of knowledge. Not picking sides with right or left politically.
Would you prefer a library that contained only 'Mein Kampf', or one
that contained only 'Das Kapital'?
>
> Well, as somebody said earlier, change the title from "Mary" to
> "Mohammed" (or any other non-Christian religious figure) and the
> leftists would have that museum shut down faster than you can say
> "freedom of expression," and the perpetrators of the exhibit would also
> be indicted for hate crimes and end up behind bars, with leftists
> screaming for their heads on a platter. What a bunch of hypocrites!
>
> Michael
And what museums have been shut down by 'leftists' recently?
You still don't get it, Michael. Certain museums, in Toronto and
elsewhere, have been obliged to withdraw exhibits or amend them because
of public protests from one faction or another.
Giuliani is threatening to end the Brooklyn Art Museum. Period.
BTW, I don't much care whether you colour it Nazi Brown or Commie Red,
or a delicate shade of beige or pink.
It's still fascism.
john ramsay
>
> john ramsay wrote:
> >
> neither.
>
Hi Michael, you give an interesting response to what you call an
interesting question.
I said : Most large public libraries contain both 'Mein Kampf' and 'Das
Kapital'.
You say: > Somehow I suspect that the local library contains
> neither.
That's not really a response, is it?
E. Barry Bruyea
>On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>
>> On ont.general, the name of an Arizona judge is about as relevant as
>> the name of the person who designed the "N" in Neilson's chocolate.
>
>He's not an "Arizona judge". He's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
>United States. If you know nothing about him, you know nothing about
>conservatism, whether you are Ontarian or Antiguan.
>
>> In any case, your "logic" is totally transparent. Conservative=bad.
>> Rehnquist=conservative. Therefore Rehnquist=bad.
>
>That's not my "logic". That formula is something you fabricated on your own,
>based on I-don't-know-what.
>
>> It is utterly boring to read a leftist lawyer's predictable comments
>> on a conservative judge.
>
>That's because you understand nothing about either the "leftist lawyer's"
>opinions nor about the conservative judge's. It just occurred to me that
>dialogue with you is a complete waste of time.
>
>-N
Given that Renquist's political leanings and/or prejudice are only
relevant as a swing vote on the U.S. SC, he can't be unique in his
reasoning. Also, given than another SCJ has never met a minority he
doesn't like, its nice to have a balance.
>
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
E. Barry Bruyea
>Neil wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>>
>> > Neil wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Neil wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > You seriously don't see my point? Wow. Obviously, if some powerful
>> > Mr. X were to crush free speech about an issue, and also crush the freedom
>> > to mention the fact that he did that, you would never hear about it, would
>> > you? I don't have any insider information on this, and I don't know who the
>> > hypothetical Mr. X is, but the idea that you would define "the single
>> > greatest enemy the First Amendment has seen since Joseph McCarthy" on the
>> > basis of what you have soaked up from the ultra-censored boob tube is
>> > telling. You are a very naive person. The stupid vote combined with the
>> > naive vote is what keeps the system working against us.
>>
>> You are quite mistaken about my sources of information. In fact, my sources
>> are those which you are probably completely unaware of and which only rarely
>> show up on television, because they are only published in the Supreme Court
>> Reporter and are only of interest to lawyers and law students. Rehnquist is by
>> far the Justice most unfriendly to First Amendment issues since he joined the
>> Supreme Court, as you would know if you bothered to read any of his case
>> opinions. He also happens to be the most conservative Justice on the Court. In
>> fact the legal community here in Arizona is particularly familiar with him
>> since he is one of two Arizonans on the Supreme Court and comes back here
>> quite often.
>>
>> Name the other for ten points.
>
> On ont.general, the name of an Arizona judge is about as relevant as
>the name of the person who designed the "N" in Neilson's chocolate. In
>any case, your "logic" is totally transparent. Conservative=bad.
>Rehnquist=conservative. Therefore Rehnquist=bad. Nice work, Einstein.
> It is utterly boring to read a leftist lawyer's predictable comments on
>a conservative judge. For ten points, name the Ontario NDP cabinet
>member who offered to take a lie-detector test to prove that she had
>lied on a previous occasion? And for twenty points, name her spouse
>(that one is a really obscure "trivial pursuits" type of question).
>
> Michael
He could pick up another 10 points by naming the NDP BC Cabinet
minister who was present at the 'I have a dream" speech of the late
M.L. King while he was a 14 year old boy in Kenya.
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Neil
> Given that Renquist's political leanings and/or prejudice are only
> relevant as a swing vote on the U.S. SC, he can't be unique in his
> reasoning.
Well, I only mentioned his name as an example. He is by no means a swing vote
since he is joined by his conservative cohorts of Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas,
with O'Connor being a mostly-conservative swing vote. This 4.6-4.4 majority
will soon change with the next election. This also assumes Souter and Ginsburg
are liberals, which they are only on occasion.
> Also, given than another SCJ has never met a minority he doesn't like, its
> nice to have a balance.
Not sure I understand, but in any case, the US Supreme Court is far from being
balanced. Its old liberal guard has fallen victim to almost two cumulative
decades of Republican appointments to the Court. The days of Marshall and
Brennan giving the finger to Rehnquist are over.
-N
Michael
Well yes it is, considering that very few Canadians live near a "large
library."
Michael
Michael
> He could pick up another 10 points by naming the NDP BC Cabinet
> minister who was present at the 'I have a dream" speech of the late
> M.L. King while he was a 14 year old boy in Kenya.
>
Sounds like a nice trick. Those carnies are making such a mess of
politics.
Michael
Neil
> > That's not really a response, is it?
>
> Well yes it is, considering that very few Canadians live near a "large
> library."
"Very few" Canadians live in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Vancouver,
Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Halifax?
-N
Michael
Toronto Public Library so you don't have a clue. The card-file
referencing system makes Myst look like child's play. And there are
never any librarians available to explain it. It isn't like you look up
a subject and then get a list of books. You look up a subject, and you
get a list of numbers. You go to a room with hundreds of filing cabinets
containing numbered cards with more numbers. There is no explanation
anywhere of what any of those numbers mean.
Perhaps a person with a master's degree in Library since could find Das
Kapital in under 8 hours, but an average voter walking in off the street
wouldn't be able to find it in under 8 years. I have a university
degree, and I know how to use most libraries, but the last time I
visited the Toronto Public Library it was a total waste of time. After
spending many hours tracking down certain books, I found out that they
had all been stolen.
There is a difference between having a library devoted to professional
scholars and professional students paid by taxpayers to take course
after course, as versus having a library that is accessible to the
general reading public.
You are a despicable troll here, in my opinion. You haven't a clue
about Canada (and I challenge you to prove otherwise), and you seem to
be on ont.general solely to push some misguided US leftist agenda that
doesn't apply in the slightest to Canada. Is somebody paying you to
agitate in a foreign country or what?
Michael
Neil
> Neil wrote:
> >
> > "Very few" Canadians live in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Vancouver,
> > Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Halifax?
> >
> You consider a twenty-mile trek to be "near"?
If you got off your lazy fat ass once in a while, you'd consider the quick,
efficient, comfortable Go Train ride to downtown to be "near" also.
> You haven't been to the Toronto Public Library so you don't have a clue.
No but I have been to the Bibliotheque national du Quebec in downtown
Montreal. A 20-minute walk but well worth it. I didn't even speak French at
the time but I had enough brains to find my way around, unlike you in your own
library. :D
> Perhaps a person with a master's degree in Library since could find Das
> Kapital in under 8 hours, but an average voter walking in off the street
> wouldn't be able to find it in under 8 years. I have a university
> degree, and I know how to use most libraries, but the last time I
> visited the Toronto Public Library it was a total waste of time. After
> spending many hours tracking down certain books, I found out that they
> had all been stolen.
I suggest you get help.
> You are a despicable troll here, in my opinion. You haven't a clue
> about Canada (and I challenge you to prove otherwise), and you seem to be on
> ont.general solely to push some misguided US leftist agenda that doesn't
> apply in the slightest to Canada. Is somebody paying you to agitate in a
> foreign country or what?
I've actually been to the town of Ontario several times, while driving from LA
to San Francisco. I'm not an expert on the town's history, but I know my way
around.
-N
john ramsay
>
> Well yes it is, considering that very few Canadians live near a "large
> library."
>
Hi Michael, so why are you bothered by an exhibit at a large museum in
the U.S.?
Aulne
Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
> > You haven't been to the Toronto Public Library so you don't have a clue.
> No but I have been to the Bibliotheque national du Quebec in downtown
> Montreal. A 20-minute walk but well worth it. I didn't even speak French at
> the time but I had enough brains to find my way around, unlike you in your own
> library. :D
Again busy comparing oranges with apples and insulting someone in the process.
The Bibliotheque nationale can't be compared to the Toronto Public Library.
Go to the Montreal Public Library (Bibliotheque centrale) instead.
Alain
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Carrick
>Again busy comparing oranges with apples and insulting someone in the process.
If that is the case, the offending post would fit in very well in this
newsgroup.
john ramsay
>
> Neil wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well yes it is, considering that very few Canadians live near a "large
> > > library."
> >
> > Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Halifax?
> >
> Toronto Public Library so you don't have a clue. The card-file
> referencing system makes Myst look like child's play. And there are
> never any librarians available to explain it. It isn't like you look up
> a subject and then get a list of books. You look up a subject, and you
> get a list of numbers. You go to a room with hundreds of filing cabinets
> containing numbered cards with more numbers. There is no explanation
> anywhere of what any of those numbers mean.
> Kapital in under 8 hours, but an average voter walking in off the street
> wouldn't be able to find it in under 8 years. I have a university
> degree, and I know how to use most libraries, but the last time I
> visited the Toronto Public Library it was a total waste of time. After
> spending many hours tracking down certain books, I found out that they
> had all been stolen.
>
Hi Michael, do you mean the Metro Reference Library on Yonge just north
of Bloor?
The card catalogue is on computers and is online as well. Has been
for quite a few years.
E. Barry Bruyea
>> You are a despicable troll here, in my opinion. You haven't a clue
>> about Canada (and I challenge you to prove otherwise), and you seem to be on
>> ont.general solely to push some misguided US leftist agenda that doesn't
>> apply in the slightest to Canada. Is somebody paying you to agitate in a
>> foreign country or what?
>
>I've actually been to the town of Ontario several times, while driving from LA
>to San Francisco. I'm not an expert on the town's history, but I know my way
>around.
>
>-N
Looks like you're not an expert on much, including driving if you
drive through Ontario, CA, while going from L.A. to S.F. Looks like
politics isn't the only thing you're confused about. Not surprising,
though.
>
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
E. Barry Bruyea
>I've actually been to the town of Ontario several times, while driving from LA
>to San Francisco. I'm not an expert on the town's history, but I know my way
>around.
>
-N
As in trivial aside to our ongoing discussion, I've noticed your sig
is very reminiscent of the Napoleanic Imprint. Is there a particular
reason? Or are you just a fan?
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Hali
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:47:04 -0700, Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> You are a despicable troll here, in my opinion. You haven't a clue
> >> about Canada (and I challenge you to prove otherwise), and you seem to be on
> >> ont.general solely to push some misguided US leftist agenda that doesn't
> >> apply in the slightest to Canada. Is somebody paying you to agitate in a
> >> foreign country or what?
> >
> >to San Francisco. I'm not an expert on the town's history, but I know my way
> >around.
> >
> >-N
>
> drive through Ontario, CA, while going from L.A. to S.F.
Actually, if you go east first you can avoid the traffic in the Valley.
--
Hali
(Aimer un ennemi est encore le meilleur moyen de s'en débarrasser)
Michael
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>
> > Neil wrote:
> > >
> > > Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Halifax?
> > >
> > You consider a twenty-mile trek to be "near"?
>
> efficient, comfortable Go Train ride to downtown to be "near" also.
>
>
> Montreal. A 20-minute walk but well worth it. I didn't even speak French at
> the time but I had enough brains to find my way around, unlike you in your own
> library. :D
>
> > Kapital in under 8 hours, but an average voter walking in off the street
> > wouldn't be able to find it in under 8 years. I have a university
> > degree, and I know how to use most libraries, but the last time I
> > visited the Toronto Public Library it was a total waste of time. After
> > spending many hours tracking down certain books, I found out that they
> > had all been stolen.
>
>
> > about Canada (and I challenge you to prove otherwise), and you seem to be on
> > ont.general solely to push some misguided US leftist agenda that doesn't
> > apply in the slightest to Canada. Is somebody paying you to agitate in a
> > foreign country or what?
>
> I've actually been to the town of Ontario several times, while driving from LA
> to San Francisco. I'm not an expert on the town's history, but I know my way
> around.
>
I am sure you are the messiah to the 0.00000001% of the human
population who relates to your twisted elitist agenda.
Michael
Michael
>
> Michael wrote:
> >
> > Neil wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
> > >
> > > > > That's not really a response, is it?
> > > >
> > > > Well yes it is, considering that very few Canadians live near a "large
> > > > library."
> > >
> > > Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Halifax?
> > >
> > Toronto Public Library so you don't have a clue. The card-file
> > referencing system makes Myst look like child's play. And there are
> > never any librarians available to explain it. It isn't like you look up
> > a subject and then get a list of books. You look up a subject, and you
> > get a list of numbers. You go to a room with hundreds of filing cabinets
> > containing numbered cards with more numbers. There is no explanation
> > anywhere of what any of those numbers mean.
> > Kapital in under 8 hours, but an average voter walking in off the street
> > wouldn't be able to find it in under 8 years. I have a university
> > degree, and I know how to use most libraries, but the last time I
> > visited the Toronto Public Library it was a total waste of time. After
> > spending many hours tracking down certain books, I found out that they
> > had all been stolen.
> >
>
> of Bloor?
> The card catalogue is on computers and is online as well. Has been
> for quite a few years.
No doubt. But thanks to the internet, the cost of searching for a book
in the comfort of my home and ordering it online is much less than the
cost in dollars and time of trekking into TO on a murder-ridden transit
system to try to find it in the hopeless megalibrary. My original point
is that Niel doesn't understand the concept of a "local library." The
big libraries in the downtowns of Canada's five major cities are only
"local" to people who live within a five-block radius. To the other
99.99% of Canada's population, these libraries are not "local." There is
an arrogance associated with the idea that only professional students,
living near a major library, off the avails of honest workers' paycheck
deductions, should have the right to an opinion. Their opinion is biased
because they have a vested interested in preserving their parasitic
existence.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that people from the same
part of the political spectrum as Niel have already stolen and burnt all
the library books that present views that he disagrees with. People with
his opinions have a history of that kind of thing. Check out the history
of the USSR, for example. So that makes libraries devolve into rather
pointless anachronisms when it comes to politics. Great places to find
books about the history of pot-bellied stoves or obscure literary
figures, but when it comes to politics, forget it.
Michael
Michael
>
> Michael wrote:
> >
> > john ramsay wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael wrote:
> > > >
> > > > john ramsay wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > Well yes it is, considering that very few Canadians live near a "large
> > library."
> >
>
> Hi Michael, so why are you bothered by an exhibit at a large museum in
> the U.S.?
Hahahaha! Point well taken.
Michael
Neil
Which newsgroup are you referring to? Ontario, California.politics, or
Ontario, California.general?
-N
Michael
And by the same token, you should also decry anyone who objects to
elderly farmers meeting in barns in the midwest US with precisely the
same KKK agenda as the Brooklyn Museum, i.e. promoting hatred of Roman
Catholics.
That is such a new concept, i.e. that one doesn't have to ever worry at
all about hate propaganda because it usually doesn't extend more than a
few blocks from the physical building in which it is being perpetrated.
Michael
john ramsay
Hi Michael, but it's not the same token.
An art exhibit is meant to stimulate thoughtful responses, not action.
Unlike a bunch of KKKs, or their spiritual descendants such as Timothy
McVeigh.
Indeed I thought your initial interpretation, as reproduced above and
below, was an interesting example of how an artwork can stimulate
thought.
> > > the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
> > > renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
> > > hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
> > > after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.
But instead, you seem to have worked your way around from RC
overpopulation propaganda, to propaganda against RCs.
Michael
Your gullibility surprises me.
> Unlike a bunch of KKKs, or their spiritual descendants such as Timothy
> McVeigh.
What ever happened to him anyway? Is he doing life? I thought he was
supposed to be executed. Any terrorist who'd do that deserves what he
gets. I was disappointed that the media didn't cover the McVeigh trial
the same way they covered the O.J. Simpson trial.
> Indeed I thought your initial interpretation, as reproduced above and
> below, was an interesting example of how an artwork can stimulate
> thought.
Art can stimulate thought. Politically motivated hate-mongering
obscenities such as the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum can also
stimulate thought. Charles Manson stimulated thought, so does that mean
you endorse Charles Manson?
> > > > the timing of the exhibition of the elephant-dung
> > > > renderings of RC icons at the Brooklyn Museum probably makes it
> > > > hilarious, given that dung is all that will remain of the elephants
> > > > after a few more years of RC pro-overpopulation propaganda.
> But instead, you seem to have worked your way around from RC
> overpopulation propaganda, to propaganda against RCs.
How disappointing. I thought that you were somehow above cutting and
pasting quotations out of context. I have always been very upfront about
the fact that I consider the RC view on overpopulation (which is the
same as the UN's view) to be utterly evil because it is certain to bring
this planet to a condition of hopeless never-ending squalour. But that
is a case of a religious institution promoting essentially political
agendas that are not connected to the religion at all. I also disagree
with Fundamentalists wanting "Creationism" taught in schools as Science.
But when it comes to desecrating religious symbols that bring comfort to
widows in Church, I think that is an example of vile hate-mongering at
its lowest, and I think that the pepetrators of the Brooklyn Museum
should be forced to eat that exhibit...as an art statement, of course.
Michael
Neil
> Art can stimulate thought. Politically motivated hate-mongering
> obscenities such as the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum can also
> stimulate thought. Charles Manson stimulated thought, so does that mean
> you endorse Charles Manson?
No, but I endorse his right to free speech.
> How disappointing. I thought that you were somehow above cutting and
> pasting quotations out of context. I have always been very upfront about
> the fact that I consider the RC view on overpopulation (which is the
> same as the UN's view) to be utterly evil
This is clearly hate-mongering. You are using computer servers partly
supported by the federal government of Canada in order to publish this
hate-filled message. Your ability to publish all messages should therefore be
forever ended.
-N
(unless, of course, you have nice things to say)
Michael
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
>
> > obscenities such as the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum can also
> > stimulate thought. Charles Manson stimulated thought, so does that mean
> > you endorse Charles Manson?
>
Good for you. You endorse serial killers but you won't defend the
freedom of non-violent people to discuss politics.
> > How disappointing. I thought that you were somehow above cutting and
> > pasting quotations out of context. I have always been very upfront about
> > the fact that I consider the RC view on overpopulation (which is the
> > same as the UN's view) to be utterly evil
>
> This is clearly hate-mongering. You are using computer servers partly
> supported by the federal government of Canada in order to publish this
> hate-filled message. Your ability to publish all messages should therefore be
> forever ended.
>
> -N
>
> (unless, of course, you have nice things to say)
So you do have a sense of irony after all. You know that my message was
not hate-filled. Well, it was hate-filled in the sense that anybody who
loves this planet and loves humanity would hate any force (e.g. the
RC/UN overpopulation propagandists) who would guarantee that your
children and grandchildren will live in squalour and that your great
grandchildren will probably not be born at all. But I do not hate any
identifiable group. I think that the left's obsession with slotting
people into identifiable groups is calculated to promote inter-minority
friction and tribal hatred, because in the ensuing melee they hope to
garner a few ill-gained votes.
But if your point is that your love of freedom of expression includes
defending hate propagandists, then you are obviously not an
equal-opportunity defender. The fact is that leftists like yourself
turned out in droves to defend anti-RC hate propaganda, but those same
leftists would paradoxically and schizophrenically turn out in droves to
silence, censor and persecute anyone deemed even slightly offensive to
any group outside of Christianity.
It is clear that you and your ilk are like the people who extoll the
emperor's new "freedom of expression" clothes yet are blind to the fact
that the emperor has no clothes, and that your "freedom of expression"
is supported by your ideological gang only to the extent that the
hate-propaganda is directed exclusively against Christians.
It really is a total waste of time to attempt to reason people who
think as you do. One might as well try to reason with a brick.
Michael
Michael
>
> Neil wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Michael wrote:
> >
> > > obscenities such as the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum can also
> > > stimulate thought. Charles Manson stimulated thought, so does that mean
> > > you endorse Charles Manson?
> >
>
> Good for you. You endorse serial killers but you won't defend the
> freedom of non-violent people to discuss politics.
>
> > > pasting quotations out of context. I have always been very upfront about
> > > the fact that I consider the RC view on overpopulation (which is the
> > > same as the UN's view) to be utterly evil
> >
This being my last word on this sad topic, I want to make one thing
very clear. My defense of a level playing field re the leftist-endorsed
freedom to promote hatred of a specifically targeted identifiable groups
such as Roman Catholics does NOT mean that I defend those who promote
hatred of other identifiable groups, be they Moslems, Hindus, Jews,
Buddhists, or other people of identifiable ancestral backgrounds, not to
mention atheists, homosexuals, crazy people like many of the leftist
internet posters, nor any other person or persons who might be
considered ready objects of ridicule by some people. I would prefer to
see no groups subjected to the obscene degradation that leftists defend
re ridiculing Roman Catholics and Christians in general, but given that
belief in "freedom of expression" protects hate-mongers like the
perpetrators of the Brooklyn Museum exhibit, logic demands that the same
liberty be extended to those who abuse other identifiable groups. Those
who are not prepared to grant hatemongers an open season on all
identifiable groups must grant Roman Catholics the same protection,
otherwise they convict themselves of hypocrisy in the court of Logic.
Michael
Neil
> Neil wrote:
> > This is clearly hate-mongering. You are using computer servers partly
> > supported by the federal government of Canada in order to publish this
> > hate-filled message. Your ability to publish all messages should therefore be
> > forever ended.
>
> So you do have a sense of irony after all. You know that my message was
> not hate-filled.
No. I'm sorry. Your interpretation does not count. Nor does anyone else's. I
shall impose my view and my interpretation of your personally-expressed
OPINION and punish you as a result of your decision to publish it, because of
the (admittedly specious) line between you and the use of taxpayer funds to
post messages on usenet.
And I dare you to tell me that I am trying to violate your freedom of
expression.
On a serious note, I do not endorse serial killers. I do endorse freedom of
speech.
-N
john ramsay
Sorry Michael, you're the gullible one. The art exhibit ran in London
England without the furor raised in NYC by Rudy Giuliani because he was
and is running against Hillary Clinton for the US senate.
The exhibit raised thoughtful responses, including the comment I
mentioned some time ago on this thread.
A British art critic said Giuliani was just giving publicity to a
mediocre artist.
Do you think Giuliani cared? He wanted his own publicity.
As for cutting and pasting things out of context, Michael, I only cut
and pasted your own comments on the same topic.
Your comments are your comments. Not my problem if you contradict
yourself.
Aulne
Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
> And I dare you to tell me that I am trying to violate your freedom of
> expression.
>
> On a serious note, I do not endorse serial killers. I do endorse freedom of
> speech.
You do support murder when it is for a good cause. And you are quite against
freedom of speech actually. Reading your stuff for four years in the
newsgroups shows that.
Neil
> You do support murder when it is for a good cause. And you are quite
> against freedom of speech actually. Reading your stuff for four years in
> the newsgroups shows that.
Apologies for the length of this post.
Alain has good reasons to accuse me of "supporting murder", being "against
freedom of speech", and every other evil deed under the sun...
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Alain Lachapelle wrote:
> Now you've been asked the following question by somebody else. Now is the
> time for you to come forward to put light on why you've been harassing me
> for all those years:
> ==============================================
> Hali <hali...@home.com> wrote:
>
> What statement did he make that lead you to conclude that he is
> anti-Semitic? That's all I'm asking.
On November 27, 1996, someone asked: "Je me demande quelle pourrait etre les
elements de l'histoire pre-deuxieme guerre qui aurait suscite une telle
reaction chez les allemands."
Jean-Francois Pflieger wrote a well thought out response: "Beaucoup
d'elements: economique, historique, religieux,... peuvent expliquer
l'utilisation des Juifs, par les nazis, comme responsables du "malheur"
allemands des annees 20-30 (jusqu'a les accuser d'avoir fait perdre la guerre
de 14-18, enfin). Mais, les personnes d'obedience juives ont depuis tres
longtemps ete la cible ideale des puissants en quete du pouvoir et/ou
d'argent. Ansi, plusieurs rois de France ont "taxe" a outrance les juifs (de
Paris, surtout) pour ne pas avoir a lever d'impots supplementaires sur leur
peuple (sous-entendu que les juifs n'en font pas parti) deja lourdement
impose. Les Juifs ressortent d'ailleurs volontier cette image de "martyres
universels" quand il defendent leurs interets (durant la creation d'Israel
apres la guerre de 39-45, par exemple)."
To which Alain objected: "Le contexte de cette image est aussi utilisee, ad
vitam, lorsqu'il s'agit de 'critiquer' le Quebec."
[Yes, those damn Jews are as annoying as those damn Quebec anglos]
He continues: "Mais pourquoi les Juifs ont ete cette cible dont tu parles?
Pourquoi pas les Africains? Pourquoi pas les Arabes?"
[Well, why not Alain? Because they didn't deserve it while Jews did?]
In the same post, Alain's even troubled by the mere existence of the Holocaust
Museum in Washington, D.C. and the refusal of Jews to forget the horrors of
the Holocaust: "est-ce qu'il y a un tel musee pour les 50 millions de russes
qui ont ete tues par les nazis et les communistes? Ou bien un musee pour les
Armeniens? Les Kurdes? Les Polonais? Est-ce que le souvenir de l'holocauste
est transmis de generation en generation chez les Juifs, dans les familles, a
la maison?"
Alain also had a serious problem with people objecting to the OLF harassing
Jews on Passover. When Rose Anne once remarked, "To pick on the Jewish
community at Passover, such P.R. The whole world is watching." He responded
with sarcasm and obvious bitterness, "Funny thing, next year the labels will
have French on them. Oh yes, by the way, is there a similar law for labels and
signs in Israel?"
[Supposed discrimination in Israel justifies Government harassment of Montreal
Jews?]
Alain simply can't come across a single compliment anyone makes of Jews
without inserting some form of criticism, reference to Israeli foreign policy
[which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how Jews as _individuals_ should be
perceived or treated, in Israel or anywhere else], or any general basis for
discrediting the accomplishments or persecution of Jews. Michel Catudal
finished off a post on March 20, 1996, for example, by signing: "Long live the
brave Jewish people".
Alain again objected: "Whoa. Is this Sesame Street or what? Sun Myung Moon
Club of Revelations? Try to get informations about the following: What did
the Jews do in Southern Lebanon? What are they doing ** now ** in Southern
Lebanon? Haven't you followed the news lately? Or do they say just about
nothing, zilch, nada, rien du tout, on the Jewish bombings in Southern
Lebanon?"
[Jewish bombings? Or bombings conducted by the government of Israel? Does a
true anti-Semite see a difference between the two? Once again, what
relationship does there exist between the military and political decisions of
the Israeli government and how Jews all over the world, as individual human
beings, should be treated? According to the typical anti-Semite, such as
Alain, the relationship is a direct and unbreakable chain: all Jews must be
punished for the evils perpetrated by the political establishment in Tel Aviv.
*They share a collective guilt*.]
Alain has a problem with the strong alliance between the US and Israel too, as
he illustrated on July 17, 1996: "Israel prime minister visiting Clinton
before elections because he knows very well that Clinton can't critisize
harshly Israel for fear of loosing the strong Jewish support in the USA for
his election."
Alain hates with a passion the fact that Israel even exists, in fact. He very
artistically drew an analogy illustrating the evil hypocrisy (as he sees it)
and Jewish conspiracy involved in creating Israel, and what would happen if
such apparently immoral logic were applied to Quebec. Claude de Contrecoeur, a
separatist innocently comparing Quebecois to Jews, wrote, "The Jews have
waited 2OOO YEARS to come back to Israel.We just have been waiting a little
more than 2OO years! So we still have plenty of time."
Alain's response of April 17, 1996, was a beautiful illustration of how he
perceives the events that led to the creation of Israel:
"Sure. Makes plenty of sense. And then we'll invoke, with what little French
language remains in the descendants reclaiming the land of Quebec, on behalf
of the name of Saint Rene-Levesque, our land. The World Government will
agree."
[World government? Those evil Zionists again?]
"Then we'll have to move all the people who, during that time, settled in that
land of Quebec. We'll evacuate them in Ontario. We'll push them in Ottawa so
we can get Montreal back."
[It gets worse.]
"Ottawa, being a sovereign country at that time, will then get support from
the USA to fight us because we are now occupying a place where people were
living normally, thanks to the Wise and Brave World Governement. But we'll
fight back, with Justice and Noble Cause behind us, even invading some parts
of Ottawa. So on, so forth."
[These words speak for themselves.]
Alain has faced accusations of anti-Semitism from people other than myself
too, of course. Murray Kastner, a Montreal Jew and long-time enemy of Alain
Lachapelle, wrote quite recently on February 11, 1999: "Je connais M. Alain
Lachapelle depuis longtemps et c'est le vrai qu'il est un antisemite. Il m'ont
dites ca lui-meme... Pas des grand nouvelles, ca..."
Alain had no choice, again, but to go on the defensive by going on the
offensive: "Murray Kastner qui se vantait de vouloir aller coloniser Israel.
Se vantait de vouloir devenir un colon juif pour se vautrer sur les terres
volées aux Palestiniens. Eh bien Murray, je t'ai jamais dit que j'etais
antisemite, ou bien est-ce que ton âge avancé (tu dois etre dans la
soixantaine maintenant?) te fait perdre le fil de temps à autre?"
[If he can't attack you on the basis of your race -Murray is a Jew- he'll
attack your age.]
Apparently, aside from being anti-Semitic, and making racist remarks against
my own skin colour ["shit-coloured", and I am Asian Indian, for the
unacquainted reading this], Alain also got a little carried away in making
racist remarks against a Hispanic at some time. In the same post as above, he
responded to those accusations the way he usually does, by trying to obfuscate
the issue and creatively re-interpret his own words: "Sous ton identite de
'Mike' tu m'écrivais voila environ un ou deux mois une autre remarque
anti-raciste parce que j'avais employé le terme "code spaghetti" envers
quelqu'un qui se disait en informatique, un certain Lopez. Le terme "code
spaghetti" que tu ne comprends absolument pas, t'a fait relever les pattes et
tu m'a fait pipi dessus."
Even more recently, Alain showed his disagreement with legal suits being filed
against non-German corporations which had aided the Nazi regime, and once
again paranoically mischaracterized all the lawyers involved in this fight for
justice as being 'Washington Jews': "Le gars il est impressionne par la
poursuite des avocats Juifs de Washington contre Ford pour des dedommagements
parce que Ford a contribue a la machine de guerre d'Hitler durant la deuxieme
guerre mondiale."
[not only are many of the lawyers involved in these suits non-Jewish, but I
myself would join in the fight if I had the opportunity]
One funny little quip I saw involved Alain pretending to be "unbiased" with
regard to conflicts between the Arab and Jewish people, on January 16, 1999:
"I'm neither Arab nor Jew so I'm not taking a side."
[No, he's neither Arab nor Jew, but there is the small matter of him being a
rabid anti-Jew.]
There are many, many, many more similar things he has written but I have
neither the time nor the desire to spend more energy on this matter. It is
clear, beyond any doubt, that this man is obsessed with discrediting Jews,
that he is anti-Semitic, that he is a racist not always capable of keeping
himself from blurting out racist remarks, and that he is an intellectual
fraud. I have no doubt whatsoever that his response to this post will be more
ranting, more raving, more creative re-interpretations, and of course, more
personal insults directed toward me. Keep your eyes glued because it should be
an amusing read.
So, there you have it, Alain Lachapelle. You are an arrogant, racist,
ignorant, anti-Semitic piece of human waste (long live the First Amendment),
and you now have your much sought after "proof" of such to boot
Oh, just a few more things: (1) I refuse to have a dialogue about this; (2) I
will not stop characterizing Alain Lachapelle as an anti-Semite and racist;
(3) other racists beware, for people like myself are not few in numbers.
-N
Aulne
Neil <ne...@imap1.asu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Alain Lachapelle wrote:=20
> > You do support murder when it is for a good cause. And you are quite
> > against freedom of speech actually. Reading your stuff for four years in
> > the newsgroups shows that.=20
> Apologies for the length of this post.=20
Please do apologise.
> Alain has good reasons to accuse me of "supporting murder", being "against
> freedom of speech", and every other evil deed under the sun...
No at all "every other evil deed under the sun." Not at all. Please, you're
not very good at dramatizing.
Ut's only these two mentioned above, apart from your arrogant claims that you
are dragging for years now on the internet.
> I think I'll do my homework now. I'm a bit behind you see. :)
Now, I know you're very busy with your law school and you're quite a noble
guy to take the time to write what you did for a second time. I already
started to answer the diffamatory claims about me in soc.culture.quebec. I'm
replying in detail and as I pointed out, it takes indeed more time to
construct that to destroy. I don't have all the time I wish I could have to
reply faster. This does not mean that I forgot, that I have no say in this,
that I agree.
You poor little thing, wasting 20 minutes to pursue your hate agenda.
You see, I work an average 10 hours per day, have two free weekends per
month, a family to spend time with and all those other little things in life
that counts and sums up in a quite large amount of time.
But I will find the the time to get to you, don't you ever worry. Your
antisemitic claims against me propagated in one of the tools I use for work
have been quite tiresome with the years. At first it was OK, leveling on the
lowest communications found in many newsgroups. But you've been at it for
several years now, with many of your claims signed with the "law school"
description.
I started responding to your phony claims in French on soc.culture.quebec and
I did plan an English version of same. Your arrogant and accusating attitude
will find the result it attracts.
Meanwhile, just sit back and relax.
And please do continue wiht your hate agenda against me. Don't let me down
at this point.
Michel Catudal
>
> This being my last word on this sad topic, I want to make one thing
> very clear. My defense of a level playing field re the leftist-endorsed
> freedom to promote hatred of a specifically targeted identifiable groups
> such as Roman Catholics does NOT mean that I defend those who promote
> hatred of other identifiable groups, be they Moslems, Hindus, Jews,
> Buddhists, or other people of identifiable ancestral backgrounds, not to
> mention atheists, homosexuals, crazy people like many of the leftist
> internet posters, nor any other person or persons who might be
> considered ready objects of ridicule by some people. I would prefer to
> see no groups subjected to the obscene degradation that leftists defend
> re ridiculing Roman Catholics and Christians in general, but given that
> belief in "freedom of expression" protects hate-mongers like the
> perpetrators of the Brooklyn Museum exhibit, logic demands that the same
> liberty be extended to those who abuse other identifiable groups. Those
> who are not prepared to grant hatemongers an open season on all
> identifiable groups must grant Roman Catholics the same protection,
> otherwise they convict themselves of hypocrisy in the court of Logic.
>
Fundies are usually ridiculed because they believe in idiotic stuff and press
the issue when it is obvious that they appear to be insane (666, beast, rapture, etc )
Fundies tend to be from the far right and are often in the same groups as those morons
who don't like anyone who doesn't look or sound like 'em.
Normal people, meaning atheists, secular christians, secular Jews, secular muslims or others
secular religious groups tend to be more pragmatic, neither from the left nor the right.
Your labeling of people who support freedom as from the left is lunatic as people from
the left tend to be against freedom of any kind much like those from the right.
--
Tanné du plantage avec Ti-Mou?
C'est l'temps d'essayer Linux
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat/
We have software, food, music, news, search,
history, electronics and genealogy pages.
John Carrick
>Your labeling of people who support freedom as from the left is lunatic as people from
>the left tend to be against freedom of any kind much like those from the right.
Really?
Clarification, please.
Are you talking about *all* people on the left and the right? Or are
you talking only about *extremists*? If it's the latter, you should
have said so.
I think that it would be preposterous to suggest that only centrists
have any interest in or respect for freedoms of various kinds.
You don't believe, I hope, that there are only three political
positions that are available to any of us: lunatic left, lunatic
right, and centrist.
In fact, there is a *continuum* of political positions, with many
gradations between extremes on the left and the right.
In addition, there are many people who adopt somewhat leftist
positions on some issues, and somewhat rightist positions on others.
For example, there are fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal
on certain issues.
But perhaps I misunderstood you.
Michael
> Normal people, meaning atheists, secular christians, secular Jews, secular muslims or others secular religious groups
That is the most shamelessly bigotted piece of hate-motivated religious
stereotyping I have ever seen on the net. Anybody who is not a "normal"
brain-dead slug like yourself and your brain-dead cronies is scum. Well,
I hope you enjoy the garbage world you have helped to create as it and
your loved ones descend into the squalour and agony that you have so
glibly and mindlessly helped to create.
Michael
Michel Catudal
You are making a fool of yourself. Your response seem to imply that you are one of those
fundies. A fundy is not a normal person. A normal person respects other people's beliefs.
Fundies don't do that. For a fundy, a non believer is scum. For a fundy, a non believer
is someone who doesn't believe in the same bulshit as being spread in his flock.
Michel Catudal
>
> >Your labeling of people who support freedom as from the left is lunatic as people from
> >the left tend to be against freedom of any kind much like those from the right.
>
> Really?
>
> Clarification, please.
>
Those who consider themselves from the left are commies and socialists
while those who consider themselves from the right are faschists and fundies.
Those are all scum of the planet.
The rest of the world has a mix of ideas. For instance I consider myself conservative
on economic issues while I am liberal on social issues. A lot of people think the
same way. For some other people it is the reverse. There are those who don't give
a rat's ass.
I'm not sure there is a true center as most people have their mind set one way or another.
The self proclaimed centrist tend to be opportunists.
> Are you talking about *all* people on the left and the right? Or are
> you talking only about *extremists*? If it's the latter, you should
> have said so.
>
> I think that it would be preposterous to suggest that only centrists
> have any interest in or respect for freedoms of various kinds.
>
The ideal centrist doesn't have biased ideas on subject.
> You don't believe, I hope, that there are only three political
> positions that are available to any of us: lunatic left, lunatic
> right, and centrist.
>
> In fact, there is a *continuum* of political positions, with many
> gradations between extremes on the left and the right.
>
There are those who will admit to their opinions and those who won't.
> In addition, there are many people who adopt somewhat leftist
> positions on some issues, and somewhat rightist positions on others.
> For example, there are fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal
> on certain issues.
>
> But perhaps I misunderstood you.
perhaps you did.
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>
>>Your labeling of people who support freedom as from the left is lunatic as people from
>>the left tend to be against freedom of any kind much like those from the right.
>
>Really?
>
>Clarification, please.
>
>Are you talking about *all* people on the left and the right? Or are
>you talking only about *extremists*? If it's the latter, you should
>have said so.
>
You mean the kind of clarification you insert when you confuse 'right
winger' and 'extremist' in a large number of your posts?
Barry Bruyea
si...@sympatico.ca
Michel Catudal
There are a lot of extremists on both the left and the right. The fundies on the right
are just as dangerous for our freedom as are the commies on the left.
Michael
>
> Michael wrote:
> >
> > Michel Catudal wrote:
> >
> > > Normal people, meaning atheists, secular christians, secular Jews, secular muslims or others secular religious groups
> >
> > That is the most shamelessly bigotted piece of hate-motivated religious
> > stereotyping I have ever seen on the net. Anybody who is not a "normal"
> > brain-dead slug like yourself and your brain-dead cronies is scum. Well,
> > I hope you enjoy the garbage world you have helped to create as it and
> > your loved ones descend into the squalour and agony that you have so
> > glibly and mindlessly helped to create.
> >
>
> You are making a fool of yourself. Your response seem to imply that you are one of those
> fundies. A fundy is not a normal person. A normal person respects other people's beliefs.
> Fundies don't do that. For a fundy, a non believer is scum. For a fundy, a non believer
> is someone who doesn't believe in the same bulshit as being spread in his flock.
"A normal person respects other people's beliefs." You wrote that.
Obviously you are not "normal" even by your own definition, because you
have no respect for any viewpoint other than your own booboisie myopia.
Michael
john ramsay
>
> "E. Barry Bruyea" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:30:52 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>Your labeling of people who support freedom as from the left is lunatic as people from
> > >>the left tend to be against freedom of any kind much like those from the right.
> > >
> > >Really?
> > >
> > >Clarification, please.
> > >
> > >Are you talking about *all* people on the left and the right? Or are
> > >you talking only about *extremists*? If it's the latter, you should
> > >have said so.
> > >
> >
> > You mean the kind of clarification you insert when you confuse 'right
> > winger' and 'extremist' in a large number of your posts?
> > Barry Bruyea
> > si...@sympatico.ca
>
> There are a lot of extremists on both the left and the right. The fundies on the right
> are just as dangerous for our freedom as are the commies on the left.
>
Hi, so where are all the commies?
Since we seem to be on Canadian newsgroups, I'll restrict the
question to Canada.
Are there any elected members of the Communist Party in any of the 10
provincial legislatures?
Are there any commies sitting as members in the federal parliament?
Michel Catudal
>
>
> Hi, so where are all the commies?
>
> Since we seem to be on Canadian newsgroups, I'll restrict the
> question to Canada.
>
> Are there any elected members of the Communist Party in any of the 10
> provincial legislatures?
>
Commies know very well that they have no chances of getting elected in Canada
so they call themselves NDP or social democrat. They seem to have been removed
from the electoral map at the last Ontarian election. As for Québec I only recall
one MP being elected as NDP and he probably would have got elected even if he ran
for the Rhinoceros party. Whatever party he ran on wasn't much of an issue, the
man was elected not the party.
True commies are for the most part found in universities and colleges in basket weeving classes
> Are there any commies sitting as members in the federal parliament?
Official commies, no! They know they wouldn't get elected on that banner. The closest
to their ideals are the NDP.
--
john ramsay
>
> john ramsay wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi, so where are all the commies?
> >
> > Since we seem to be on Canadian newsgroups, I'll restrict the
> > question to Canada.
> >
> > Are there any elected members of the Communist Party in any of the 10
> > provincial legislatures?
> >
>
> Commies know very well that they have no chances of getting elected in Canada
> so they call themselves NDP or social democrat. They seem to have been removed
> from the electoral map at the last Ontarian election. As for Québec I only recall
> one MP being elected as NDP and he probably would have got elected even if he ran
> for the Rhinoceros party. Whatever party he ran on wasn't much of an issue, the
> man was elected not the party.
>
> True commies are for the most part found in universities and colleges in basket weeving classes
>
> > Are there any commies sitting as members in the federal parliament?
>
> Official commies, no! They know they wouldn't get elected on that banner. The closest
> to their ideals are the NDP.
>
So why are you worried about commies in Canada? There are no true ones
exeppt in university basket weeving (sic) classes.
BTW, care to name any Canadian universities who actually run such
classes?
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
As a matter of interest, there was a Communist MP, Fred Rose, who over
50 years ago sat in Canada's Parliament and turned out to be a KGB spy
with the rank of Colonel. He ended his years in a cold water flat in
Moscow, forgotten and depressed. A fitting end.
>
>
EBB
Michael
>
> John Carrick wrote:
> >
> > >Your labeling of people who support freedom as from the left is lunatic as people from
> > >the left tend to be against freedom of any kind much like those from the right.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Clarification, please.
> >
>
> Those are all scum of the planet.
Ah, a die-hard middle-of-the-roader. Most people would despise the
extremism of a gun-toting mugger who demanded "Your money or your life!"
and would prefer a extremely non-violent person, whereas Michel
apparently would have the greatest respect for the middle-of-the-roader
who would carry a moderately big club and calmly announce to his victim
"Give me half your money or I'll beat you half to death."
Life would be so easy if the middle-of-the-road positions of people
like Michel always turned out to be wisest, but the fact of the matter
is that evil extremes sometimes do arise in the world, and these must
sometimes be balanced by an extreme rejection. The wishy-washy middle
may be the most comfortable for intellectually lazy people, but it is
preposterous to think that the sleepy comfort of the middle is in any
way associated with reality.
Michael
Neil
> Life would be so easy if the middle-of-the-road positions of people
> like Michel always turned out to be wisest, but the fact of the matter is
> that evil extremes sometimes do arise in the world, and these must sometimes
> be balanced by an extreme rejection. The wishy-washy middle may be the most
> comfortable for intellectually lazy people, but it is preposterous to think
> that the sleepy comfort of the middle is in any way associated with reality.
What utter garbage. The fact is that you hate liberals, you're blinded by
partisanship, and you can't stand the fact that most people in our society ARE
in fact political moderates, and therefore sometimes take stands on issues
which run contrary to your right-wing views.
Then you have the gall to suggest that moderates are out of touch with
reality! Please, continue to humour us.
-N
Neil
> As a matter of interest, there was a Communist MP, Fred Rose, who over 50
> years ago sat in Canada's Parliament and turned out to be a KGB spy with the
> rank of Colonel. He ended his years in a cold water flat in Moscow,
> forgotten and depressed. A fitting end.
Fitting because he was a spy, or because he was a Communist?
-N
Michael
Displaying your reading disabilities again? Have you no shame?
Michael
Michel Catudal
>
> >
> > Official commies, no! They know they wouldn't get elected on that banner. The closest
> > to their ideals are the NDP.
> >
>
> So why are you worried about commies in Canada? There are no true ones
> exeppt in university basket weeving (sic) classes.
> BTW, care to name any Canadian universities who actually run such
> classes?
Disguised commies or real commies are just as dangerous for your wallet and liberties.
All universities and colleges have basket weeving classes. Just look at the number
of welfare recipients with useless university or college degrees like art or philosophy.
On radio I heard a famous biblist that was interviewed by Gilles Proulx. He's one of many with
useless degrees.
Neil
> Displaying your reading disabilities again? Have you no shame?
Just FYI, Michael, a federal district court judge in New York issued an
injunction on November 2, prohibiting Mayor Giuliani and the City of New York
from restricting any funds to the museum in question. The Court ruled the
Mayor's actions were in violation of the First Amendment protection of freedom
of speech.
How 'ya like 'dem apples?
-N
john ramsay
'basket-weeving' or, more correctly, basket-weaving.
Also please identify your own useful degree. Might make you more
credible.
Michael
hate-mongering, and that you would heartily endorse this as you would
endorse all hate-mongering. Or is your idea of "freedom to display hate
propaganda" just restricted to victimizing identifiable groups that you
like to pick on?
I must admit that I find it odd that a democratically elected official
does not have the freedom to spend the taxpayers' money the way the
taxpayers elected him to spend it. That is a strange view of democracy.
As I see it, turdsmen condemn themselves by choosing that line of work,
as do those like yourself who regard defending turdsmen to be a noble
cause. I guess like attracts like.
Michael
Neil
under Canada's hate-speech laws, for which you will face time in prison,
humiliation and degradation in the media and in your community, loss of your
reputation, and financial costs for hiring an attorney to defend you.
On the other hand, that wacky American "free speech" thing doesn't sound so
bad after all, does it?
-N